On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:13:37AM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > I don't think this is my item.  Most of the behavior is old, and
>> > pg_stat_get_wal_receiver() is from commit
>> > b1a9bad9e744857291c7d5516080527da8219854.
>> >
>> > I would appreciate if another committer can take the lead on this.
>> Those things are on Alvaro's plate for the WAL receiver portion, and I
>> was the author of those patches. The WAL sender portion is older
>> though, but it seems crazy to me to not fix both things at the same
>> time per their similarities.
> As a 9.6 commit, b1a9bad cannot be the cause of a v10 open item.  If a v10
> commit expanded the consequences of a pre-existing bug, the committer of that
> v10 work owns this open item.  If the bug's consequences are the same in v9.6
> and v10, this is ineligible to be an open item.  Which applies?

You are right. Even 1bdae16f is from 9.6. Mea culpa. I have moved that
into the section of older bugs.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to