Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> - If so, how? I would propose a new contrib module that we back-patch
>> all the way, because the VACUUM errors were back-patched all the way,
>> and there seems to be no advantage in making people wait 5 years for a
>> new version that has some kind of tooling in this area.
> While I agree that this would be a good and useful new contrib module to
> have, I don't think it would be appropriate to back-patch it into PG
> formally.
Yeah, I don't care for that either. That's a pretty huge violation of our
normal back-patching rules, and I'm not convinced that it's justified.
No objection to adding it as a new contrib module.
regards, tom lane
