Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > Seems simple enough and the right hting to do, but I wonder if we should > really backpatch it. Yes, the behaviour is not great now, but there is also > a non-zero risk of breaking peoples automated failover scripts of we > backpatch it, isn't it?
Yeah, I'd vote against backpatching. This doesn't seem like an essential
fix.
regards, tom lane
