On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I suggest that there's a more principled reason for refusing a back-patch > here, which is that we don't back-patch new features, only bug fixes. > This request is certainly not a bug fix. It's in support of a new feature > --- and one that's not even ours, but a third-party extension.
Yes, that's not a bug fix. I agree on that. > Considering that said extension isn't finished yet, it's hard to guess > whether this will be the only blocking factor preventing it from working > with older versions, but it might well be that there are other problems. > Also, even if it would work, the author would be reduced to saying things > like "it will work in 9.4, if it's 9.4.9 or later". Keeping track of that > level of detail is no fun either for the author or for users. The extension in this case is for 9.4, for a product yet to be released that is now on 9.4.8, so I don't care much about the support grid here to be honest. > It'd be a lot simpler all around to just say "my spiffy new extension > requires 9.6 > or later". Well, that's the only factor as far as I saw that prevented me to use this extension on Windows. But I won't fight your might regarding a backpatch, wearing the burden of a custom patch applied to miscadmin.h for REL9_4_STABLE is not huge: this code never changes. > In short, I'd vote for putting this change in HEAD, but I see no need to > back-patch. OK, fine for me. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
