On 08/04/2015 02:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
From my POV 9.5 is the one that's most critical, because it's the one
that introduced a regression test that leaves a shell type lying around.
But "as far back as convenient" works for me.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
