On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> 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.
Well, can any of those people try running with this patch? That'd be a good way of getting some confidence in it. Generally, I agree that something needs to be back-patched here. But we don't want to create a situation where we fix some people and break others, and it's not too obvious that we have a way to get there. Personally, I favor adding some kind of GUC to control the behavior, but I'm not exactly sure what the shape of it ought to be. -- 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
