On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> > I wonder if we ought to backport this further: e.g. walsender >> > continously uses nonblocking sockets via pq_getbyte_if_available(). On >> > the other hand I can't immediately see a problem with that, besides >> > differing messages on windows/the rest of the world. >> >> I'm slightly worried about breaking 3rd-party code that might be using >> recv() and somehow expecting the current behavior. However, it's equally >> arguable that such code would have Windows-specific problems that would be >> fixed by the patch. Now that we've seen a successful round of buildfarm >> results, I'd be okay with back-patching 90e61df8 personally. >> >> Any other opinions out there? > > Maybe holdoff until the release with the new code has been out for a while, > but make sure we get it into the next set of minors? That'll give us at > least some real world deployment to notice any issues with it?
If we don't know of a specific problem that would be fixed by back-patching this commit to pre-9.5 branches, and it seems like we don't, then I don't really see much upside to back-patching it. I mean, yeah, we think that this is wrong because we think we know that the behavior of Windows is different than what we thought when the code was written. But if we were wrong then, we could be wrong now, too. If so, it would be better to only have broken 9.5. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers