On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:26:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Poking at that, I find that a1a789eb5 back-patches reasonably painlessly > into v11 and v10, but trying to bring it back to 9.6 encounters a pile of > merge failures. Also, looking at the git logs shows that we did a hell > of a lot of subtle work on that code (libpqwalreceiver.c in particular) > during the v10 cycle. So I've got no confidence that successful > buildfarm/beta1 testing of the HEAD patch means much of anything for > putting it into pre-v10 branches. > > Given that we've seen few if any field reports of this issue, my > inclination is to back-patch as far as v10, but not take the risk > and effort involved in going further.
+1 for only a back-patch to v10 per the invasiveness argument. I think that you have made the right move here. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
