On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:07 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > If I am not missing anything then that change was in > > > lazy_cleanup_index and after this patch, it won't be required because > > > we are using a different variable name. > > > > > > I have combined both the patches now. > > > > > > > I am planning to push this tomorrow if there are no further > > suggestions/comments. > > > > Pushed. Now, coming back to the question of the back patch. I see a > point in deferring this for 3-6 months or maybe more after PG13 is > released. OTOH, this implementation is mainly triggered by issues > reported in this area and this doesn't seem to be a very invasive > patch which can cause some de-stabilization in back-branches. I am not > in a hurry to get this backpatched but still, it would be good if this > can be backpatched earlier as quite a few people (onlist and EDB > customers) have reported issues that could have been narrowed down if > this patch is present in back-branches. > > It seems Alvaro and I are in favor of backpatch whereas Andres and > Justin seem to think it should be deferred until this change has seen > some real-world exposure. > > Anyone else wants to weigh in? >
Seeing no more responses, it seems better to defer this backpatch till PG13 is out and we get some confidence in this functionality. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
