On 2018-Aug-10, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 02:03:28PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Aug-06, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Like cbe24a6, perhaps we would not want to back-patch it? Based on the > >> past history (and the consensus being reached for the REINDEX case would > >> be to patch only HEAD), I would be actually incline to not back-patch > >> this stuff and qualify that as an improvement. That's also less work > >> for me at commit :) > > > > I'm not sure I understand your arguments for not back-patching this. > > Mainly consistency. Looking at the git history for such cases we have > not really bothered back-patching fixes and those have been qualified as > improvements. If we were to close all the holes mentioned in the > original DOS thread a back-patch to v11 could be thought as acceptable? > That's where the REINDEX fix has found its way after all, but that was > way less code churn, and we are post beta 3 for v11...
I was actually thinking in applying to all back-branches, not just pg11, considering it a fix for a pretty serious bug. But checking the history, it seems that Robert patched this is 9.2 as new development (2ad36c4e4, 1489e2f26, cbe24a6dd, 1da5c1195, 74a1d4fe7); holes remained, but none was patched until 94da2a6a in pg10 -- took some time! And then nobody cared about the ones you're patching now. So I withdraw my argumentation, mostly because there's clearly not as much interest in seeing this fixed as all that. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
