On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I was actually thinking in applying to all back-branches, not just pg11, > considering it a fix for a pretty serious bug. But checking the > history, it seems that Robert patched this is 9.2 as new development > (2ad36c4e4, 1489e2f26, cbe24a6dd, 1da5c1195, 74a1d4fe7); holes remained, > but none was patched until 94da2a6a in pg10 -- took some time! And then > nobody cared about the ones you're patching now. > > So I withdraw my argumentation, mostly because there's clearly not as > much interest in seeing this fixed as all that.
The original patches would, I think, have been pretty scary to back-patch, since the infrastructure didn't exist in older branches and we were churning a fairly large amount of code. Now that most places are fixed and things have had five years to bake, we could conceivably back-patch the remaining fixes. However, I wonder if we've really looked into how many instances of this problem remain. If there's still ten more that we haven't bothered to fix, back-patching one or two that we've gotten around to doing something about doesn't make a lot of sense to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
