Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-19 12:03:22 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > > Since this change to BufferGetPage() has caused severe back-patch
> > > pain for at least two committers so far, I will revert that (very
> > > recent) change to this patch later today unless I hear an
> > > objections.
> > 
> > I vote for back-patching a no-op change instead, as discussed elsewhere.
> What about Tom's argument that that'd be problematic for external code?

Kevin offered to code it in a way that maintains ABI and API
compatibility with some trickery.

Robert Haas wrote:

> That wouldn't have fixed my problem, which involved rebasing a patch.

True.  I note that it's possible to munge a patch mechanically to sort
out this situation.

> I really think it's also a bad precedent to back-patch things into
> older branches that are not themselves bug fixes.  Users count on us
> not to destabilize older branches, and that means being minimalist
> about what we put into them.

Well, this wouldn't change the inner working of the code at all, only
how it looks, so it wouldn't affect users.  I grant that it would affect
developers of forks.

Álvaro Herrera      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to