On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
> > I didn't backpatch, because I thought it doesn't worth it to create
> > buzz over single wrong path in the comment. But, I found 12 similar
> > cases in our source tree. Do you think it worth backpatching now?
>
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> I didn't backpatch, because I thought it doesn't worth it to create
> buzz over single wrong path in the comment. But, I found 12 similar
> cases in our source tree. Do you think it worth backpatching now?
Nah, just fix 'em in HEAD.
regards,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:26 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Header comment of shm_mq.c was mistakenly specifying path to shm_mq.h.
> It was introduced in ec9037df. So, theoretically it could be
> backpatched to 9.4, but it doesn't seem to worth it.
I didn't backpatch, because I thought it doesn'
