On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:42 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Can we reuse _bt_end_parallel() this time around? It would be easy to
> add a "bool wait" argument to _bt_end_parallel(). All existing callers
> would pass true, but when not using parallelism due to the new DSM
> segment check we'd pass false.
Hmm. I see why you didn't do it that way -- we don't quite have the
variables set up in the way that _bt_end_parallel() expects them.
This looks good, then.
--
Peter Geoghegan