Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head
Date: 2015-08-04 19:14:04
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/04/2015 02:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

From my POV 9.5 is the one that's most critical, because it's the one
that introduced a regression test that leaves a shell type lying around.
But "as far back as convenient" works for me.



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-08-04 19:20:14 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-08-04 19:00:43 Re: [sqlsmith] subplan variable reference / unassigned NestLoopParams (was: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in joinrels.c)