On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On 2016-01-04 10:35:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> If we don't know of a specific problem that would be fixed by >>> back-patching this commit to pre-9.5 branches, and it seems like we >>> don't, then I don't really see much upside to back-patching it. I >>> mean, yeah, we think that this is wrong because we think we know that >>> the behavior of Windows is different than what we thought when the >>> code was written. But if we were wrong then, we could be wrong now, >>> too. If so, it would be better to only have broken 9.5. > >> I think it always was just a typo, given code a few lines down in the >> same function, added by the same commit, treated that case differently. > > And, indeed, it was only because that code further down handled the case > correctly that nobody noticed for so long.
OK, well, if the consensus is in favor of a back-patch, so be it. It seems a little strange to me to back-patch a commit that doesn't fix anything, but I just work here. -- 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
