| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Michael Meskes (meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org)" <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bug fix] ECPG: freeing memory for pgtypes crashes on Windows |
| Date: | 2018-06-11 14:04:47 |
| Message-ID: | 31871.1528725887@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> One question I have is whether it is against project policy to
> backport a new file and a new user-facing function.
Given that this has been broken since forever, and there've been
no complaints before now, I do not think the case for back-patching
is strong enough to justify the problems it would cause. Just
put it in v11 and be done.
Also, this bit in the proposed documentation seems quite inappropriate:
(This is a change from earlier releases of
<productname>PostgreSQL</productname> ...
We don't normally put in such comments at all, and if we do, we
specify which version we're talking about. Two years from now
this'd be totally confusing. I'd just make it read
(This is important only on Windows, where ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-06-11 14:25:45 | Re: Spilling hashed SetOps and aggregates to disk |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-06-11 13:57:01 | Re: cursors with prepared statements |