great, thanks a lot...
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 17:11:35 Tom Lane wrote:
> Marc Cousin <mcousin(at)sigma(dot)fr> writes:
> > On Tuesday 05 May 2009 16:35:11 Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm ... is it likely that index entries with pathid = 120 are *very* few
> >> and far between in jobid order? It looks like we have no
> >> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS calls inside the loop in _bt_next(), which is
> >> probably a mistake ...
> >
> > In fact. there are none, as I had just removed them and I wasn't sure of
> > it, so I was double-checking before telling my colleagues it was OK :)
>
> OK, that explains it then :-(. I'll see about fixing this.
>
> regards, tom lane