Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No big hurry, I think, considering the leak has always been there.
> Great. It seems like this is too invasive a change to backport. My
> feeling is that not enough people have complained about this specific
> scenario to warrant the risk.
Agreed, the risk/reward ratio doesn't seem favorable for a backport.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
