On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Michael Banck <michael.ba...@credativ.de> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 16:20 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: >> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Is there an argument for back-patching this? >> > >> > >> > Seems you were typing that at the same time as we did. >> > >> > >> > I'm considering it, but not swayed in either direction. Should I take >> > your comment as a vote that we should back-patch it? >> >> I've checked back into this thread, and there seems to be a +1 from Tom >> and a +(0.5-1) from Simon for backpatching, and no obvious -1s. Did you >> decide against it in the end, or is this still an open item? > > > No, I plan to work on it, so it's still an open item. I've been backlogged > with other things, but I will try to get too it soon. > > (This also includes considering Jeff's note) > > I've applied a backpatch to 9.4. Prior to that pretty much the entire patch is a conflict, so it would need a full rewrite. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
