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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
