On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 08:39:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2018-01-05 18:57:55 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 03:51:15PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > >>> Also, leaving translatability aside, why was *any* of this backpatched? > > >> Tom has preferred that I backpatch all safe patches so we keep that code > >> consistent so we can backpatch other things more easily. > > > I've a hard time believing this. Tom? > > I've been known to back-patch stuff just to keep branches consistent, > but it's always a judgement call. In this case I wouldn't have done it > (even if the patch were a good idea in HEAD) because it would cause > churn in translatable messages in the back branches. Also, the case > for cosmetic back-patching is only strong when a particular file is > already pretty similar across all branches, and I'm not sure that > holds for pg_upgrade.
There was a time when pg_upgrade was similar in all branches and churning a lot with fixes, so I was going on that plan. At this point I don't think that is true anymore, so maybe we can switch just to head and PG 10 on this. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +