| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brar Piening <lists(at)piening(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly? |
| Date: | 2016-01-04 15:38:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20160104153852.GB28025@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-04 10:35:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> If we don't know of a specific problem that would be fixed by
> back-patching this commit to pre-9.5 branches, and it seems like we
> don't, then I don't really see much upside to back-patching it. I
> mean, yeah, we think that this is wrong because we think we know that
> the behavior of Windows is different than what we thought when the
> code was written. But if we were wrong then, we could be wrong now,
> too. If so, it would be better to only have broken 9.5.
I think it always was just a typo, given code a few lines down in the
same function, added by the same commit, treated that case differently.
Anyway, I don't have a particularly strong opinion here, so ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-04 15:40:36 | Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-01-04 15:38:13 | Re: Avoiding pin scan during btree vacuum |