On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:59 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:40 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > > > > On 9/23/21, 11:26 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > > On 2021-Sep-23, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > > > > > >> On 9/22/21 20:11, Amit Kapila wrote: > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:06 AM Jeremy Schneider <schnj...@amazon.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Any chance of back-patching this? > > >> > > > >> > Normally, we don't back-patch code improvements unless they fix some > > >> > bug or avoid future back-patch efforts. So, I am not inclined to > > >> > back-patch this but if others also feel strongly about this then we > > >> > can consider it. > > >> > > >> The original thread about the logical replication bugs spawned a few > > >> different threads and code changes. The other code changes coming out of > > >> those threads were all back-patched, but I guess I can see arguments > > >> both ways on this one. > > > > > > I think that for patches that are simple debugging aids we do > > > backpatch, with the intent to get them deployed in users' systems as > > > soon and as widely possible. I did that in this one, for example > > > > +1 for back-patching > > > > I can take care of backpatching this in the next few days unless there > is any objection. >
Done. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
