Dimitri Fontaine escribió: > The problem here (at least for me) was to understand why this (yet to be > reviewed) patch is about implementing a new feature and not about > bugfixing an existing one. So we're exactly in the fog around the > informal backpatch policy, and as long as we're able to continue talking > nicely about it, this seems the finest solution :)
The actual criterion is not really "new user-visible feature" versus "bug fix". It's more an attempt at measuring how large a potential impact the change has. The patch I saw was introducing a whole new message type to go through the shared invalidation queue, which is not something to be taken lightly (consider that there are three message types of messages currently.) It's possible that for the Skype usage this patch introduces the behavior they want. But for other people, perhaps this kind of invalidation causes secondary effects that are completely unforeseen -- what if it breaks their apps and they must carry out a week's work to fix it? What if a serious security problem is discovered tomorrow and they can't update because we've broken backwards compatibility for them? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
