On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:13 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > On 2020/05/02 20:40, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > I don't see any obvious problem with the changed code but we normally > > don't backpatch performance improvements. I can see that the code > > change here appears to be straight forward so it might be fine to > > backpatch this. Have we seen similar reports earlier as well? AFAIK, > > this functionality is for a long time and if people were facing this > > on a regular basis then we would have seen such reports multiple > > times. I mean to say if the chances of this hitting are less then we > > can even choose not to backpatch this. > > I found the following two reports. ISTM there are not so many reports... > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16159-f5a34a3a04dc6...@postgresql.org > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dd6690b0-ec03-6b3c-6fac-c963f91f87a7%40postgrespro.ru >
The first seems to be the same where this bug has been fixed. It has been moved to hackers in email [1]. Am, I missing something? Considering it has been encountered by two different people, I think it would not be a bad idea to back-patch this. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200129.120222.1476610231001551715.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
