|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> On 2015-08-04 13:52:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Not sure whether we should consider it a back-patchable bug fix or
>>> something to do only in HEAD, though --- comments?
>> Tentatively I'd say it's a bug and should be back-patched.
> Agreed. If investigation turns up reasons to worry about
> back-patching it, I'd possibly back-track on that position, but I
> think we should start with the notion that it is back-patchable and
> retreat from that position only at need.
OK. Certainly we can fix 9.5 the same way as HEAD; the pg_dump code
hasn't diverged much yet. I'll plan to push it as far back as convenient,
but I won't expend any great effort on making the older branches do it if
they turn out to be too different.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2015-08-04 18:28:12||Re: brin index vacuum versus transaction snapshots|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2015-08-04 18:05:55||Re: tablecmds.c and lock hierarchy|