Gilles Darold <gil...@darold.net> writes:
> Le 17/11/2022 à 17:59, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> I didn't want to back-patch e3fcbbd62 at the time, but it's probably aged
>> long enough now to be safe to back-patch. If we do anything here,
>> it should be to back-patch the whole thing, else we've only partially
>> fixed the issue.
> Here are the different patched following the PostgreSQL version from 11
> to 14, they should apply on the corresponding stable branches.
Reviewed and pushed --- thanks for doing the legwork!
Trawling the commit log, I found the follow-on patch 3e6e86abc,
which fixed another issue of the same kind. I back-patched that
too.
regards, tom lane
