| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: contrib modules and relkind check |
| Date: | 2017-03-10 02:03:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZnfei=NZVdd80F+F1T3_NnfCDgD2uj4XoOdDZvw6OL8Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks. Shouldn't this fix be back-patched? pg_visibility should fail
> properly for indexes and other relkinds even in 9.6. pgstattuple can
> also trigger failures. It would be confusing for users to face "could
> not open file" kind of errors instead of a proper error message. Note
> that I am fine to produce those patches if there is a resource issue
> for any of you two.
I don't see a real need to back-patch this. I mean, it probably
wouldn't break anything, but it feels more like we're raising our
standards than fixing bugs per se. I don't think it benefits us when
users see the release notes for a new minor release series cluttered
with essentially non-critical fixes. It makes people worry about
whether upgrading is safe. You might brand those people as silly, but
they (indirectly) pay my mortgage.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-03-10 02:06:56 | Re: Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-10 02:02:40 | Re: on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management |