Re: Would it be possible to backpatch Close support in libpq (28b5726) to PG16?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Would it be possible to backpatch Close support in libpq (28b5726) to PG16?
Date: 2023-08-15 22:39:20
Message-ID: 20230815223920.upweeqc6uwcmidou@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2023-Aug-16, Michael Paquier wrote:

> > Personally I think backpatching 28b5726 has a really low risk of
> > breaking anything.
>
> I agree about the low-risk argument, though. This is just new code.

Here's a way to think about it. If 16.1 was already out, would we add
libpq support for Close to 16.2?

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La rebeldía es la virtud original del hombre" (Arthur Schopenhauer)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-08-15 22:49:31 Re: Logging of matching pg_hba.conf entry during auth skips trust auth, potential security issue
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2023-08-15 22:39:10 Re: Logging of matching pg_hba.conf entry during auth skips trust auth, potential security issue