| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(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 17:12:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYLco5mpw7UqjB7H3JCY6mPL6CUmz6emUA3HrGROjPsAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-03-06 17:13:37 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
| Previous Message | Nikita Glukhov | 2019-03-06 17:11:41 | Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree |