On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yes, I think it's rather silly not to do so. We have made comparable
> backpatched fixes multiple times in the past. What is worth discussing is
> whether there are *additional* things we ought to do in 9.6 to prevent
> misbehavior in installatio
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> David Steele writes:
> > On 3/6/17 12:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> This issue also exists in 9.6, but we obviously can't do anything
> >> about 9.6 clusters that already exist. Possibly this could be
> >> back-patched so that future 9.6 clusters wo
David Steele writes:
> On 3/6/17 12:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This issue also exists in 9.6, but we obviously can't do anything
>> about 9.6 clusters that already exist. Possibly this could be
>> back-patched so that future 9.6 clusters would come out OK, or
>> possibly we should back-patch so
On 3/6/17 12:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted.
They depend on backend-private state that will not be synchronized by
the parallel machinery, so they should not be marked parallel-safe.
This issue also exists in 9.6, but we obviously can't d
