Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
I never heard any discussion on whether this should be backpatched to
8.0.X.  Should it?

I personally think it should _not_ be backpatched. Since it doesn't fix any bugs, it's not really the kind of thing I would expect to be backpatched.


I'm not inclined to throw it in at the last minute, as it's not been
through any testing and I'm not sure the behavior has really been agreed
on anyway.  (The diff you cite starts from code that's not in 8.0.* either.)

Regarding the behavior I pretty much thought it was agreed upon. I saw people proposing reasons advocating both the log file and the client getting the message. Simon's "Can we have both?" comment got one positive response (Bruce's with the patch) and no negative ones, I thought that indicated general agreement.

If we did want to re-open the behavior question, I might mention
that this message is only printed on a database-wide VACUUM; and
with autovacuum targeting specific tables such database-wide
VACUUMs might become more and more rare.  But I think that's a
separate issue.

    Ron


---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to