On 2013-11-15 10:43:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > +1 to waiting awhile. I think if we don't see any problems in > HEAD, then back-patching as-is would be the best solution. > The other alternatives are essentially acknowledging that you're > back-patching something you're afraid isn't production ready. > Let's not go there.
Agreed. Both on just backpatching it unchanged and waiting for the fix to prove itself a bit. > Another reason I'm not in a hurry is that the problem we're trying > to solve doesn't seem to be causing real-world trouble. So by > "awhile", I'm thinking "let's let it get through 9.4 beta testing". Well, there have been a bunch of customer complaints about it, afair that's what made Alvaro look into it in the first place. So it's not a victimless bug. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
