On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:19:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >>> I'm going to revert that commit in HEAD shortly, unless Alvaro pops >> >>> up and promises a fix PDQ. Or you could do the same. >> > >> >> I was thinking of changing master to look like the 9.4 version. >> > >> > [ shrug... ] IMO, a quick "git revert" is less work and leaves a cleaner >> > state for Alvaro to apply whatever final solution he settles on. >> > But do what you wish. >> >> OK, I've just reverted it. > > Can I ask about the logic of why this bug fix was backpatched, or is > that clear to everyone but me.
What is your question, exactly? There was a fair amount of discussion of whether and how to back-patch this on pgsql-hackers. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
