On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > After struggling with back-patching a GIN bug fix, I wish to offer up the > considered opinion that this was an impressively bad idea. It's inserted > 450 or so pain points for back-patching, which we will have to deal with > for the next five years. Moreover, I do not believe that it will do a > damn thing for ensuring that future calls of BufferGetPage think about > what to do; they'll most likely be copied-and-pasted from nearby calls, > just as people have always done. With luck, the nearby calls will have > the right semantics, but this change won't help very much at all if they > don't.
I hit this problem over the weekend, too, when I tried to rebase a patch a colleague of mine is working on. So I tend to agree. -- 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
