Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to > >> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in an unreleased > >> branch for a while, before being backpatched. > > > > I'm definitely -1 on back-patching such a thing. Put it in HEAD for > > awhile. If it survives six months or so then we could discuss it again. > > I agree with Tom.
Okay, several months have passed with this in the development branch and now seems a good time to backpatch this all the way back to 9.4. Any objections? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers