Hi,
On 2019-05-16 11:19:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So it seems that reverting 57431a91 is an option on the table?
> Opinions?
Seems a bit early to go that way. Given that this bug was reported
yesterday, and that there's reasonable sketches how to fix this, I'm not
clear why reverting would already be on the table?
Greetings,
Andres Freund