David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> 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 some other fix, but that would need more
>> discussion.
> I think it would be worth back-patching the catalog fix for future 9.6
> clusters as a start.
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 installations initdb'd pre-9.6.3.
If there's a cheap way of testing "AmInParallelWorker", I'd be in favor of
adding a quick-n-dirty test and ereport(ERROR) to these functions in the
9.6 branch, so that at least you get a clean error and not some weird
misbehavior. Not sure if there's anything more we can do than that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
