| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 |
| Date: | 2015-08-04 17:56:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoatoQHJAvkoYy0OwNQjv4F3NYCzbJrm0GeTse98_=OkSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-04 18:05:55 | Re: tablecmds.c and lock hierarchy |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-04 17:54:19 | Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head |