| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com, andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2020-03-31 06:28:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20200331062854.GC3354091@rfd.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:43:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 09:41:01PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I think attached v41nm is ready for commit. Would anyone like to vote against
> > back-patching this? It's hard to justify lack of back-patch for a data-loss
> > bug, but this is atypically invasive. (I'm repeating the question, since some
> > folks missed my 2020-02-18 question.) Otherwise, I'll push this on Saturday.
>
> The invasiveness of the patch is a concern. Have you considered a
> different strategy? For example, we are soon going to be in beta for
> 13, so you could consider committing the patch only on HEAD first.
> If there are issues to take care of, you can then leverage the beta
> testing to address any issues found. Finally, once some dust has
> settled on the concept and we have gained enough confidence, we could
> consider a back-patch.
No. Does anyone favor this proposal more than back-patching normally?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-03-31 06:37:57 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Previous Message | Ankil Patel | 2020-03-31 06:18:09 | Gsoc Draft Proposal |