| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Back patch of Remove durable_rename_excl() |
| Date: | 2025-01-27 14:47:22 |
| Message-ID: | 392265.1737989242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I noticed that the corruption issue related to two hardlinks pointing
> to the same WAL file has been fixed in the master branch up to version
> 16 in commit [1]. As a result, the function durable_rename_excl()
> became unused and was removed in commit [2]. Since this corruption
> issue is occurring in older versions, commit [1] has been backported
> for versions 13 to 15 in commit [3]. However, I don't see the
> backporting for commit [2]. Is there a specific reason for this?
Fear of breaking extensions that use the function, perhaps?
We don't like to break ABI in minor releases.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Srinath Reddy | 2025-01-27 14:56:48 | Re: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-01-27 14:28:57 | Re: BF member drongo doesn't like 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl |