On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Ok. It won't help all that much on 9.0, though. >> >> Well, it won't help GIST much, but the actually-reported-from-the-field >> case is in btree, and it does fix that. >> >> It occurs to me that if we're sufficiently scared of this case, we could >> probably hack the planner (in 9.0 only) to refuse to use GIST indexes >> in hot-standby queries. That cure might be worse than the disease though. > > if anything, it should be documented. if you do this kind of thing > people will stop installing bugfix releases.
Agreed. I think doing that in a back-branch release would be extremely user-hostile. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
