On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 6:46 PM Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 3:34 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I feel the use of API before this version was mainly for test-cases as > > it was not production ready. So, it is less helpful to backpatch > > 1362bc33e02, if we want, we can backpatch only the worker part of the > > fix. OTOH, as the issue is not frequent and we have some workaround > > (at least for more common platforms) as well, we can consider not > > backpatching it. > > I see your point. OTOH, on second thought, if backpatching commit 1362bc33e02 > along with this patch to v17 and v18 *is harmless*, I'd prefer to do so. >
As such I don't see a problem backpatching commit 1362bc33e02 as it appears to be a localised change. > Keeping > the slotsync shutdown code more consistent across versions would make future > backpatching easier, and selectively backpatching only parts of the shutdown > logic would be more complicated and error-prone. > I agree with this line of reasoning here or in general as well but personally I am a bit hesitant to back patch changes which are not mandatory. In this particular case, I don't see any problem with backpatching the part of code you want to backpatch, so I leave it to your judgement. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
