Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I would suggest that these changes be undone, except that the old
> "SELECT FOR ..." be replaced by a dynamic string that reverse-parses the
> LockingClause to provide the actual clause that was used.
Here's a patch for this.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services