| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Mario De Frutos Dieguez <mariodefrutos(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Problem with a "complex" upsert |
| Date: | 2018-08-03 22:58:39 |
| Message-ID: | 8968.1533337119@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-08-03 18:32:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Balance the risks of shipping a broken release vs. waiting one
>> more quarter to ship the fix. After a quick look at the size
>> of the patch, my own inclination if I were the committer would
>> be to wait till after the releases are out. Or you might
>> consider pushing only to 11+HEAD, with the expectation of
>> back-patching later after we've gotten some beta results.
> This results in clearly inserting wrong data and/or crashing the
> server. And it's not a huge effect outside of already broken scenarios.
> I think we definitely should try to get this in.
Well, if you're excited about it, help Dean review it. My own feeling
is that this case has been broken for several years with no one noticing,
so it can't be all that critical.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-08-03 23:14:17 | Re: Fwd: Problem with a "complex" upsert |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-03 22:44:55 | Re: Fwd: Problem with a "complex" upsert |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-08-03 23:14:17 | Re: Fwd: Problem with a "complex" upsert |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2018-08-03 22:58:17 | Re: Range partition creation failing due to incorrectly deciding lower bound greater than upper |