Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> writes:
> BTW, I think we'd need to cherry-pick f3b141c4825 (or maybe parts of
> it) into v13 branch for back-patching this.
I already did a fair amount of that yesterday, cf 84f5c2908 et al.
But that does raise the question of how far we need to back-patch this.
I gather that the whole issue might've started with 1375422c, so maybe
we don't really need a back-patch at all? But I'm sort of inclined to
back-patch to v11 as I did with 84f5c2908, mainly to keep the worker.c
code looking more alike in those branches.
regards, tom lane
