On 1/10/24 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:17:47PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:Now that commit a4adc31 has had some time to bake and concerns about unintended consequences may have abated, I wanted to revive this back-patching discussion. I see a few possibly-related reports [0] [1] [2], and I'm now seeing this in the field, too. While it is debatable whether this is a bug, it's a quite nasty issue for users, and it's both difficult to detect and difficult to work around.+1, I've seen this becoming a PITA for a few things. Knowing that the size of PGPROC does not change at all, I would be in favor for a backpatch, especially since it's been in the tree for more than 1 year, and even more knowing that we have 16 released with this stuff in.
I have similar data sources to Nathan/Michael and I'm trying to avoid piling on, but one case that's interesting occurred after a major version upgrade from PG10 to PG14 on a database supporting a very active/highly concurrent workload. On inspection, it seems like backpatching would help this particularly case.
With 10/11 EOL, I do wonder if we'll see more of these reports on upgrade to < PG16.
(I was in favor of backpatching prior; opinion is unchanged). Thanks, Jonathan
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
