| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |
| Date: | 2014-09-11 20:53:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20140911205338.GA4081@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:24:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> > Yes, I did think about that, but it seems like a behavior change.
> >> > However, it is tempting to avoid future bug reports about this.
> >>
> >> When this came up in March, Tom and I agreed that this wasn't something
> >> we wanted to slip into 9.4. Given that, it is hard to argue we should
> >> now slip this into 9.5, 9.4, and 9.3, so unless someone else votes for
> >> inclusion, I think I will leave this as 9.5-only.
> >
> > With no one replying, I will consider this issue closed and not
> > backpatch this.
>
> I think the reason nobody's responding is because nobody has anything
> significant to add. It's a behavior change from not-working to
> working. Why wouldn't it be backpatched?
OK, Greg seems to be passionate about this. Does anyone _object_ to my
back-patching the epoch preservation fix through 9.3. Tom?
The patch is commit a74a4aa23bb95b590ff01ee564219d2eacea3706.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-09-11 20:58:12 | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-11 20:50:24 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |