On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2018-03-01 16:18:48 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>
> > > On 2018-03-01 12:56:35 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > > > I've tried to rebase this patch to 10 and, despite minor rebase
> > > (oids, bgw_type, changes to specscanner), patch works fine.
> > > > Do we provide backporting for such features?
> > >
> > > Definitely not. With very rare exceptions (OS compatibility and the
> > > like), features aren't backported.
> > >
> > Yeah. And definitely not something that both changes the format of
> > pg_control (by adding new possible values to the checksum field) *and*
> > a new WAL record type...
> And even more so, I'm not even sure it makes sense to try to get this
> into v11. This is a medium-large complicated feature, submitted to the
> last CF for v11. That's pretty late. Now, Magnus is a committer, but
See, this is why I'm trying my hardest to avoid scope-creep in it at least
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>