On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I was never arguing in favor of touching anything in the back branches; if
> you recall I didn't even voice an opinion here until I got concerned about
> too many changes happening in them. I think a proper fix in 9.0 combined
> with a release notes comment noting the old/new behavior, so it's clear what
> was broken in the old versions, would be quite enough here.
OK, commit done in head, with a note that we're deliberately not
touching the back-branches and should release-note the change. Open
item removed, also.
> Thanks for following this through, I think it's a useful small bit to get
> sorted out fully.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-07-06 23:44:24|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-07-06 22:23:39|
|Subject: Re: Does mbutils.c really need to use L'\0' ? |
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-07-07 14:42:10|
|Subject: pgsql: Document the interaction of write-barrier-enabled file systems, |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-07-06 22:55:26|
|Subject: pgsql: Make log_temp_files based on kB, and revert docs & comments to |