On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-08-04 13:52:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Not sure whether we should consider it a back-patchable bug fix or >> something to do only in HEAD, though --- comments? > > Tentatively I'd say it's a bug and should be back-patched.
Agreed. If investigation turns up reasons to worry about back-patching it, I'd possibly back-track on that position, but I think we should start with the notion that it is back-patchable and retreat from that position only at need. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
