On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure if project policy around backpatching (that commit >> messages and so on should match exactly) has anything to say about the >> case where backpatching follows several weeks after commit to the >> master branch. In the absence of any clear direction on that, I've >> created commits that look like what Peter E might have pushed in early >> April, had he decided to do that backpatch leg-work up front. > > It seems to me that we definitely want to get this stuff backpatched > at the end. So +1 for this move.
Right. This issue has a long history of causing users significant (though often intermittent) problems. As an example, consider this problem report from a co-worker of mine that dates back to 2012: https://bitbucket.org/ged/ruby-pg/issues/142/async_exec-over-ssl-connection-can-fail-on There are numerous problem reports like this that are easily found using Google. I think that there are probably a variety of unpleasant interactions and symptoms. Crashes are one rarer symptom, seen in certain scenarios only (crashes are not described in the link above). -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
