On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 08:04:29AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > FWIW, we have always been kind of sloppy with slightly overestimating > the shmem size required in the backend code, and here it's just a one. > I don't see a strong need for a backpatch here. Of course, no > objections in adjusting that on HEAD.
Agreed. > Nathan, you are planning to > take care of that as original author? This should fall under my > bucket as original committer, but as you were an author, feel free to > take priority here of course. I'll take care of it (likely tomorrow). -- nathan
