Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 10:51:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'd vote for backpatching, but only as far as 8.2, seeing that we're
>>> abandoning the older branches on Windows.
>> Should we backpatch a version of it to previous versions that does just the
>> error stack manipulation, or just ignore on the grounds that nobody has
>> reported the problem there (it's there, but it's a lot more narrow - I know
>> it's there, but I havent' been able to provoket it due to not knowing
>> enough about setting up certificate chains and such)
> That's only a cosmetic problem (wrong error message), right?  I'd vote
> for no backpatch, at least for now --- I'd rather see this change get
> through beta testing first.  Anytime you're fooling with interactions
> with some other package, the risk of portability issues is high.

Applied to HEAD. Will wait for a buildfarm cycle to make sure it doesn't
kill anything else then try to backport to 8.2 (patch didn't apply
cleanly to it)


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to