Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2015-08-04 13:52:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Not sure whether we should consider it a back-patchable bug fix or
>>> something to do only in HEAD, though --- comments?
>> Tentatively I'd say it's a bug and should be back-patched.
> Agreed. If investigation turns up reasons to worry about
> back-patching it, I'd possibly back-track on that position, but I
> think we should start with the notion that it is back-patchable and
> retreat from that position only at need.
OK. Certainly we can fix 9.5 the same way as HEAD; the pg_dump code
hasn't diverged much yet. I'll plan to push it as far back as convenient,
but I won't expend any great effort on making the older branches do it if
they turn out to be too different.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
