Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> So, I think it needs to go on the list for 8.2.1 or 8.3 (depending on what
> changes the fix requires) but I don't think we should hold up the release.
That's pretty much my feeling as well. The thing is that postponing 8.2
any further will deprive users of a lot of good stuff, in order to fix a
problem that apparently isn't biting anyone in the field. And it's not
clear that we can fix this on a shorter-than-8.3-ish timescale anyway.
The only obvious solution involves adding another header field, which
I'm sure is not very acceptable.
regards, tom lane
