On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> I think my least favorite option is changing the behavior only in >> HEAD. I think the reasonable options are: >> >> 1. Change the behavior in HEAD, 8.4, and 8.3, per previous discussion. >> If we do this, we should do what I proposed in my previous email. >> >> 2. Change the comments and documentation in 8.4 and 8.3 along the >> lines that Simon already did in HEAD. If we do this, we also need to >> change the GUC units to something other than GUC_UNIT_KB, as noted >> upthread. I'm not sure what would be appropriate. >> >> The reason I think it's OK to change the behavior in the back-branches >> is that (a) the only thing it affects is logging, so it shouldn't >> really "break" anything, and (b) apparently nobody has noticed that >> the interpretation of the GUC is off by three orders of magnitude, so >> either nobody's using it or they're not looking at what's actually >> happening too carefully. But I'm OK with going the other way and >> changing the code and docs in the back-branches, too. I just think we >> should be consistent. > > I normally don't backpatch anything unless it is either a possible cause > of data loss, or a problem that is reported by multiple people. > > Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage > people from performing minor upgrades. Minor fixes are rarely worth the > risk of causing instability in back-branches.
OK. Well, in that case, I think we should backpatch the changes Simon already made, and also pick a new unit for the GUC. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
