On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:39:06PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
If we are confident enough to say that all the holes have been patched, then we could only back-patch down to v11 in my opinion as REINDEX needed a change of behavior for the handling of shared catalog. FWIW, I have spent some time fixing all the issues reported on the original thread, but I did not double-check all commands using an exclusive lock, hence all the issues I have known of are: - REINDEX with shared catalogs, fixed by 661dd23. - TRUNCATE, with something commit only on HEAD with f841ceb2. - VACUUM FULL, for which I have submitted a patch proposal: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180812222142.GA6097%40paquier.xyz -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
