Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The commit msg says backpatched to 9.1, but given lack of backpatch of
>> another bugfix (commit 59367fdf9 for bug #9923) it doesn't actually
>> apply. I'd rather backpatch that fix and then apply this one.
> So I applied it to 9.5 and master only. If there are more votes for
> back-patching both changes to earlier branches, I can do so. I think we
> should do that -- in essence, this bug lets you corrupt your catalogs by
> dropping a user that still owns objects.
I think Bruce did not backpatch 59367fdf9 for fear of
backwards-compatibility complaints, but I tend to agree that that decision
was mistaken. The argument that you can be left with essentially corrupt
catalogs seems pretty strong.
regards, tom lane
