On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:24:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> > Yes, I did think about that, but it seems like a behavior change.
> >> > However, it is tempting to avoid future bug reports about this.
> >>
> >> When this came up in March, Tom and I agreed that this wasn't something
> >> we wanted to slip into 9.4.  Given that, it is hard to argue we should
> >> now slip this into 9.5, 9.4, and 9.3, so unless someone else votes for
> >> inclusion, I think I will leave this as 9.5-only.
> >
> > With no one replying, I will consider this issue closed and not
> > backpatch this.
> I think the reason nobody's responding is because nobody has anything
> significant to add. It's a behavior change from not-working to
> working. Why wouldn't it be backpatched?

OK, Greg seems to be passionate about this.  Does anyone _object_ to my
back-patching the epoch preservation fix through 9.3.  Tom?

The patch is commit a74a4aa23bb95b590ff01ee564219d2eacea3706.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to