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
+ Everyone has their own god. +
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: