On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I think the real question here is, shall we backpatch this fix or we >> > want to do this just in Head or we want to consider it as a new >> > feature for PostgreSQL-11. I think it should be fixed in Head and the >> > change seems harmless to me, so we should even backpatch it. >> >> The thing is not invasive, so backpatching is a low-risk move. We can >> as well get that into HEAD first, wait a bit for dust to settle on it, >> and then backpatch. > > > > I would definitely suggest putting it in HEAD (and thus, v10) for a while to > get some real world exposure before backpatching. >
make sense to me, so I have added an entry in "Older Bugs" section in PostgreSQL 10 Open Items. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers