Re: btree_gist valgrind warnings about uninitialized memory

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On 05/13/2014 05:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> What's your plans with your spgist fix? Commit it once 9.5 is branched?

> Good question. I don't know. I would still like to commit it to 9.4. It
> doesn't require catalog changes, but it's an incompatible change in the
> WAL record format. If we commit it to 9.4, it means that you cannot
> replicate between 9.4beta1 and 9.4beta2. I think that's OK, but how do
> others feel about that?

I think that's an OK restriction as long as we warn people about it
(you could update a replication pair as long as you shut them both
down cleanly at the same time, right?). Can the WAL replay routine
be made to detect incompatible records?

What worries me more is that post-beta1 fixes will, by definition,
get noticeably less beta testing than anything that went out in beta1.
So how confident are you in this fix? Is it something we'd consider
back-patching in the absence of a WAL-format issue?

regards, tom lane