Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Ack, sorry, I replied on the original thread, not realizing there was
> a second one. Basically, I think the assertion is wrong-headed and
> can be adjusted so it doesn't fail, and I attached a patch over there.
Yeah, I saw. Looks plausible to me, but I haven't studied the fine points
of the parallelism code enough to be confident in saying it's good.
regards, tom lane