On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think this kind of black-and-white thinking is very helpful. > Obviously, data corruption is bad. However, this bug has (from what > one can tell from this thread) been with us for over a decade; it must > necessarily be either low-probability or low-severity, or somebody > would've found it and fixed it before now. Indeed, the discovery of > this bug was driven by new feature development, not a user report. It > seems pretty clear that if we try to patch this and get it wrong, the > effects of our mistake could easily be a lot more serious than the > original bug.
+1. The fact that it wasn't driven by a user report convinces me that this is the way to go. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
