Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Although this is a bug fix, it's a nontrivial change in the logic and
>> so I'm hesitant to back-patch into stable branches. Given the lack of
>> prior complaints, maybe it would be best to leave it unfixed in existing
>> branches? Not sure. Thoughts?
> I guess I'd be in favor of back-patching it, if that doesn't look like
> too much of a job. We shouldn't assume that because only one person
> reports a problem, no one else has been or will be affected.
I don't think it's too much work --- what I'm more worried about is
introducing new bugs. If I apply it only in HEAD then it will go
through a beta test cycle before anybody relies on it in production.
I *think* the patch is okay, but I've been wrong before.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
