Tom Lane escribió:
> Well, that code isn't even correct I think; you're not supposed to
> modify a GUC variable directly. I think you should just silently
> use a naptime of at least X without changing the nominal GUC variable.
> And definitely without the WARNING --- that's nothing but log spam.
Glitches fixed in this version; will apply shortly to 8.3 and HEAD.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support