Re: Backpatch b61d161c14 (Introduce vacuum errcontext ...)

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > If I am not missing anything then that change was in
> > lazy_cleanup_index and after this patch, it won't be required because
> > we are using a different variable name.
> >
> > I have combined both the patches now.
> >
>
> I am planning to push this tomorrow if there are no further
> suggestions/comments.
>

Pushed. Now, coming back to the question of the back patch. I see a
point in deferring this for 3-6 months or maybe more after PG13 is
released. OTOH, this implementation is mainly triggered by issues
reported in this area and this doesn't seem to be a very invasive
patch which can cause some de-stabilization in back-branches. I am not
in a hurry to get this backpatched but still, it would be good if this
can be backpatched earlier as quite a few people (onlist and EDB
customers) have reported issues that could have been narrowed down if
this patch is present in back-branches.

It seems Alvaro and I are in favor of backpatch whereas Andres and
Justin seem to think it should be deferred until this change has seen
some real-world exposure.

Anyone else wants to weigh in?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com