| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject |
| Date: | 2016-05-03 18:52:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYfqRTPmJcGSBJwUDJuR6TfpvVZrJF_=f9x+8SAvdPTgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Any thoughts what to do with this? We could decide that it's a bug fix
>> and backpatch, or decide that it's a new feature and delay till 9.7,
>> or decide that it's a minor bug fix and add it to 9.6 only. I kinda lean
>> towards the last alternative.
>
> How about backpatching patch 1 all the way back, and putting the others
> in 9.6?
Why would we do that? It seems very odd to back-patch a pure
refactoring - isn't that taking a risk for no benefit?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-05-03 18:53:39 | Re: what to revert |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2016-05-03 18:49:03 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |