| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: equalTupleDescs() ignores ccvalid/ccnoinherit |
| Date: | 2014-03-21 18:59:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+Q59okVjFn7ytnm4Ejv+JpfpSiJd9PBDJy7z1-id09-A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21 March 2014 18:26, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Given the minor symptoms in released versions, I lean against a back-patch.
>
> FWIW, I'd lean toward a back-patch. It's probably not a big deal
> either way, but I have a hard time seeing what risk we're avoiding by
> not back-patching, and it seems potentially confusing to leave
> known-wrong logic floating around in older branches.
Agreed. It could lead to some other bug by not fixing it.
Well spotted, Noah, and thanks, since I believe it was my bug.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-03-21 19:11:14 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-03-21 18:53:27 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: |