| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject |
| Date: | 2016-05-03 20:08:21 |
| Message-ID: | 24560.1462306101@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:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> How about backpatching patch 1 all the way back, and putting the others
>>> in 9.6?
>> Why would we do that? It seems very odd to back-patch a pure
>> refactoring - isn't that taking a risk for no benefit?
Yeah, I don't see the point of that either.
> My inclination is actually to put the whole series back to 9.2, but if
> we don't want to do that, then backpatching just the first one seems to
> make pg_upgrade more amenable to future bugfixes.
I checked, and found that patch 1 doesn't apply cleanly before 9.5.
I've not looked into exactly why not, but it would possibly take some
work to adapt these patches to older branches.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rodrigo Cavalcante | 2016-05-03 20:21:32 | Re: Pg_stop_backup process does not run - Backup Intervals |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-05-03 19:10:49 | Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject |