Tom Lane wrote: > What we need to consider right now is whether to include back branches > in the existing practice of reindenting between development cycles. > This is somewhat urgent because we already did HEAD, so we have already > created a divergence from HEAD to 9.4 which is going to cause us pain > one way or the other. (It's worth noting for example that Bruce's > trial run of pgindent on 9.4 hit some of the code involved in the > fsync-the-whole-data-directory patch, which means that whatever we decide > to do about that is likely to stumble over pgindent diffs if we don't > re-indent the back branches. So I'm not talking about potential pain > in the vague future, I'm talking about this week.)
FWIW the multixact code is now slightly different between HEAD and 9.3/9.4, also. So if that needs further patches, they will be fun to backpatch. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
