On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 05:11:51PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote: > On 21 Jul 2026, at 15:02, Paul Kim <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is long-standing rather than a recent regression, so I'll leave the >> question of back-patching to a committer. Note that on branches before >> 18 vacuum_delay_point() takes no argument (the bool was added by >> e5b0b0ce150), so a back-patch would drop the "false". > > I don't know whether we should back-patch this. But I think the decision > should be aligned with the similar one in your GIN thread [0].
Adding Heikki in CC as the committer of the change that removed vacuum_delay_point() would attract his attention more easily. Done so now. I'd argue that this does not feel like a backpatch is strictly required here. It took somebody 7 years to notice the gap, and I suspect that some AI tool has been used for the scanning analysis. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
