On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2016-01-04 10:35:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I think it always was just a typo, given code a few lines down in the
>> same function, added by the same commit, treated that case differently.
> And, indeed, it was only because that code further down handled the case
> correctly that nobody noticed for so long.

OK, well, if the consensus is in favor of a back-patch, so be it.  It
seems a little strange to me to back-patch a commit that doesn't fix
anything, but I just work here.

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:

Reply via email to