Re: Improve behavior of concurrent TRUNCATE

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 02:03:28PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Aug-06, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Like cbe24a6, perhaps we would not want to back-patch it? Based on the
>> past history (and the consensus being reached for the REINDEX case would
>> be to patch only HEAD), I would be actually incline to not back-patch
>> this stuff and qualify that as an improvement. That's also less work
>> for me at commit :)
>
> I'm not sure I understand your arguments for not back-patching this.

Mainly consistency. Looking at the git history for such cases we have
not really bothered back-patching fixes and those have been qualified as
improvements. If we were to close all the holes mentioned in the
original DOS thread a back-patch to v11 could be thought as acceptable?
That's where the REINDEX fix has found its way after all, but that was
way less code churn, and we are post beta 3 for v11...
--
Michael