On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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.
> Well, it's true that we can't point to specific field reports and say
> that this will fix those.  But it's not like our Windows port is so
> rock-solid-reliable that we should give it the benefit of the doubt
> about existing behaviors being correct.  We do know that the code path
> in question is used in previous branches --- we put it there for a
> reason --- and I think it's probably possible that it gets exercised
> in corner cases, even pre-9.5.

Yeah, I'm just worried about collateral damage.  If you're convinced
that there won't be any, have at it.

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