Re: Back-patch is necessary? Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.

On 2020/05/07 17:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:13 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/05/02 20:40, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't see any obvious problem with the changed code but we normally
>>> don't backpatch performance improvements. I can see that the code
>>> change here appears to be straight forward so it might be fine to
>>> backpatch this. Have we seen similar reports earlier as well? AFAIK,
>>> this functionality is for a long time and if people were facing this
>>> on a regular basis then we would have seen such reports multiple
>>> times. I mean to say if the chances of this hitting are less then we
>>> can even choose not to backpatch this.
>>
>> I found the following two reports. ISTM there are not so many reports...
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16159-f5a34a3a04dc67e0@postgresql.org
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dd6690b0-ec03-6b3c-6fac-c963f91f87a7%40postgrespro.ru
>>
>
> The first seems to be the same where this bug has been fixed. It has
> been moved to hackers in email [1].

Yes, that's the original report that leaded to the commit.

> Am, I missing something?
> Considering it has been encountered by two different people, I think
> it would not be a bad idea to back-patch this.

+1 So I will do the back-patch.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION