Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject
Date: 2016-05-03 18:09:00
Message-ID: 20160503180900.GA59965@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Any thoughts what to do with this? We could decide that it's a bug fix
> and backpatch, or decide that it's a new feature and delay till 9.7,
> or decide that it's a minor bug fix and add it to 9.6 only. I kinda lean
> towards the last alternative.

How about backpatching patch 1 all the way back, and putting the others
in 9.6?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-05-03 18:45:58 Re: Accidentally parallel unsafe functions
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-05-03 18:06:58 Re: Timeline following for logical slots