Ron Mayer wrote: > 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. >
Advertising
OK, just asking. > > 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. Yea, I think we are agreed. I was not asking for 8.0.2 but just 8.0.X in general. I ask only to see if someone jumps up and wants to explain why it should be in 8.0.X. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
