| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX and shared catalogs | 
| Date: | 2018-08-08 19:14:50 | 
| Message-ID: | 20180808191450.GD13638@paquier.xyz | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 02:39:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I agree that it would be good to have it fixed in released versions, but
>> I also agree that such a change could cause trouble in production for
>> some.  Is the "no backpatch" idea that you will push this to both pg11
>> and master?  That would get my vote.
> 
> Same here.  I am not excited about putting such a change into stable
> branches, mainly because the existing behavior has been there for
> twenty years without any previous complaints.  So it's not *that* big
> a problem.  But it's not too late for v11, I think.
We are talking a lot about the definition of what a stable branch is,
aren't we? ;p
By no-backpatch, I only implied patching v12, but that would not be a
huge amount of efforts to get that into v11, so I can do that as well.
Any objections to doing that?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-08 19:18:09 | Re: Fix hints on CREATE PROCEDURE errors | 
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-08-08 19:11:17 | Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound |