On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> My thought is that it needs some beta testing. Perhaps it'd be sane to >>> push it into beta2 now, and then back-patch sometime after 9.1 final, >>> if no problems pop up. > >> I think it'd be sensible to back-patch it. I'm not sure whether now >> or later. It's a bug fix that is biting real users in the field, so >> it seems like we ought to do something about it. > > I don't deny it's a bug fix; I'm just dubious about the risk-reward > ratio. As to risk: the patch isn't trivial (notice Alvaro didn't get it > right the first time). As to reward: it's been like that since forever, > so if the problem were really serious, we'd have identified it before. > > Letting it age a bit during beta would do a lot to damp down the risk > side of the equation.
OK by me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
