On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr > <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote: > > > > They might get that different plan when they upgrade to the latest major > > version anyway. Is it set somewhere that minor version upgrades should > > never affect the planner? I doubt so. > > People with meticulous standards are expected to re-validate their > application, including plans and performance, before doing major > version updates into production. They can continue to use a *fully > patched* server from a previous major release while they do that. > > This is not the case for minor version updates. We do not want to put > people in the position where getting a security or corruption-risk > update forces them to also accept changes which may destroy the > performance of their system. > > I don't know if it is set out somewhere else, but there are many > examples in this list of us declining to back-patch performance bug > fixes which might negatively impact some users. The only times we > have done it that I can think of are when there is almost no > conceivable way it could have a meaningful negative effect, or if the > bug was tied in with security or stability bugs that needed to be > fixed anyway and couldn't be separated. > The necessity to perform security upgrades is indeed a valid argument against back-patching this, since this is not a bug that causes incorrect results or data corruption, etc. Thank you all for the thoughtful replies! -- Alex
