On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:24:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> > 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. > > I think the reason nobody's responding is because nobody has anything > significant to add. It's a behavior change from not-working to > working. Why wouldn't it be backpatched?
OK, Greg seems to be passionate about this. Does anyone _object_ to my back-patching the epoch preservation fix through 9.3. Tom? The patch is commit a74a4aa23bb95b590ff01ee564219d2eacea3706. -- 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
