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. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers