| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg12 release notes |
| Date: | 2019-05-10 14:18:23 |
| Message-ID: | 22340.1557497903@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Still, it's an inconsistency in pg11. I vote -0 to getting it
> backpatched, mostly because it seems like more work than is warranted.
> (I think the work consists not only of testing that the backpatched
> commit works correctly, but also documenting for 11.4 release notes how
> to fix existing catalogs after upgrading.)
Yeah, I agree. Even if we back-patched a code change, nothing could
rely on relhassubclass for this purpose in a v11 database, because
of not knowing whether the user actually bothered to manually update
pre-existing indexes' entries. Better to know that it doesn't work
than to be unsure if it does.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-05-10 14:20:05 | att_isnull |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-05-10 14:18:09 | Re: Bug in reindexdb's error reporting |