On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > That is unfortunate. I guess it points out the value of adding a > comment to point out why we would want to check these values even on > a reset to a previously-used value.
+1 for such a comment. >> I assume that you're thinking we'd only fix this in master? > > Without this, I don't think it's possible for someone to enforce > protection of their data through SSI in an ironclad way. So there > is at least some case to be made to take it back as far as 9.1. I'm OK with that, but perhaps the only-tangentially-related changes where you swap the order of certain error messages ought to be separated out and committed only to master? That stuff doesn't seem like material for a back-patch. -- 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