On 3/6/19 12:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:35 PM Andrew Dunstan > <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> OK, I think we have agreement on Tom's patch. Do we want to backpatch >> it? It's a change in behaviour, but I find it hard to believe anyone >> relies on the existence of these annoying messages, so my vote would be >> to backpatch it. > I don't think it's a bug fix, so I don't think it should be > back-patched. I think trying to guess which behavior changes are > likely to bother users is an unwise strategy -- it's very hard to know > what will actually bother people, and it's very easy to let one's own > desire to get a fix out the door lead to an unduly rosy view of the > situation. Plus, all patches carry some risk, because all developers > make mistakes; the fewer things we back-patch, the fewer regressions > we'll introduce. >
OK, no back-patching it is. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
