From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Schneider (AWS), Jeremy" <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: relation OID in ReorderBufferToastReplace error message |
Date: | 2021-10-14 22:10:36 |
Message-ID: | FCBAF3CC-52EE-4E58-AF37-6D95330688DA@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/23/21, 11:26 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2021-Sep-23, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/21 20:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:06 AM Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Any chance of back-patching this?
>> >
>> > Normally, we don't back-patch code improvements unless they fix some
>> > bug or avoid future back-patch efforts. So, I am not inclined to
>> > back-patch this but if others also feel strongly about this then we
>> > can consider it.
>>
>> The original thread about the logical replication bugs spawned a few
>> different threads and code changes. The other code changes coming out of
>> those threads were all back-patched, but I guess I can see arguments
>> both ways on this one.
>
> I think that for patches that are simple debugging aids we do
> backpatch, with the intent to get them deployed in users' systems as
> soon and as widely possible. I did that in this one, for example
+1 for back-patching
Nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-10-14 22:19:45 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-14 22:08:58 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson |