On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:58:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:24:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > >> 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? > > Not I. This is a data-loss bug fix, no? Why would we not back-patch it?
Seems I was thinking of another pg_upgrade feature we decided not to backpatch, though I can't find it now. Backpatched through 9.3. -- 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
