Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > >> Any chance to get this fixed in time for 9.1.16? > > > I hope you had pinged some days earlier. Here's a patch, but I will > > wait until this week's releases have been tagged before pushing. > > Is this a recent regression, or has it been busted all along in those > branches? > > If the former, maybe we should take the risk of fixing it today > (the patch certainly looks safe enough). But if it's been this > way a long time and nobody noticed till now, I'd agree with waiting.
Hmm, AFAICS the problematic check was introduced by this commit: commit 9f1e051adefb2f29e757cf426b03db20d3f8a26d Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> Date: Fri Nov 29 11:26:41 2013 -0300 so it isn't hot off the oven, but it is a regression. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
