On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 09:30:06AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 07:35:42PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:26:55AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > I have developed the attached patch which causes pg_upgrade to preserve > > > > the transaction epoch. I plan to apply this for PG 9.5. > > > > > > I would say this is a simple bug and should be back patched to 9.4 and > > > 9.3. We're only going to continue to get complaints from people > > > running into this. > > > > Yes, I did think about that, but it seems like a behavior change. > > However, it is tempting to avoid future bug reports about this. > > When this came up in March, Tom and I agreed that this wasn't something > we wanted to slip into 9.4. Given that, it is hard to argue we should > now slip this into 9.5, 9.4, and 9.3, so unless someone else votes for > inclusion, I think I will leave this as 9.5-only.
With no one replying, I will consider this issue closed and not backpatch this. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
