Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Tom Lane napsal(a):
>> On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that this problem is severe
>> enough to justify much backporting work. AFAIK we've only seen one
>> occurence of a problem to date.
> I know about two occurrence. One was reported on -bug
> and second was reported from our customer.
I'm still not impressed. Bear in mind that the patch you are so eager
to backport has received *zero* field testing, which means there's a
non-negligible risk that there's something wrong with it. Add on the
non-negligible risk of messing up something associated with back-porting
the earlier patch, and consider that back-branch minor releases go out
with no field testing to speak of (there's the build farm but that's
about it). You have to seriously question whether the risk is worth
what is surely an extremely marginal stability improvement.
On the whole I think we've done enough here.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-05-29 14:14:38|
|Subject: Re: Upcoming back-branch update releases |
|Previous:||From: Zdenek Kotala||Date: 2008-05-29 13:01:58|
|Subject: Re: pg_lzcompress patch for 8.3, 8.2 branch|