| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Incomplete startup packet errors |
| Date: | 2019-03-06 19:56:10 |
| Message-ID: | 6cd3f479-0594-b3d2-fa75-c398fc46dd42@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/6/19 12:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:35 PM Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> OK, I think we have agreement on Tom's patch. Do we want to backpatch
>> it? It's a change in behaviour, but I find it hard to believe anyone
>> relies on the existence of these annoying messages, so my vote would be
>> to backpatch it.
> I don't think it's a bug fix, so I don't think it should be
> back-patched. I think trying to guess which behavior changes are
> likely to bother users is an unwise strategy -- it's very hard to know
> what will actually bother people, and it's very easy to let one's own
> desire to get a fix out the door lead to an unduly rosy view of the
> situation. Plus, all patches carry some risk, because all developers
> make mistakes; the fewer things we back-patch, the fewer regressions
> we'll introduce.
>
OK, no back-patching it is.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-06 20:17:11 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-03-06 19:54:27 | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |