On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 21:00, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> We're not so worried about this case that we'd want to backport the >>> deadman switch into 8.3 or 8.2 to have a fix there, are we? > >> I think we should consider backporting the deadman switch to 8.3 and 8.2. > > [ raised eyebrow... ] Weren't you the one just lecturing me about > minimizing changes in back branches? > > That was a fairly large patch, and I *don't* want to back-port it. > The thrust of my question was more along the lines of whether we should > look for a different solution to the current problem, so that we would > have something that could be back-ported into 8.2 and 8.3. Personally > I'm satisfied with only fixing it in 8.4 and up, but then again I don't > use Windows.
Once we've shown that it works, I think we should look at doing something for <= 8.3 as well. How about something along the line of y previous patch (with the event) for 8.2 and 8.3, and then this simplified one for 8.4+? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
