Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x
Date
Msg-id 20170531155716.p47mgds63inlgssg@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Tom Lane 2017-05-31 <28752.1496238931@sss.pgh.pa.us>

> > Next question: should we back-patch this change, or just do it in HEAD?
>
> Debian "needs" it for 9.6, but I've already pushed the s390x patch in
> the original posting, so I could just live with it being just in head.
> But of course it would be nice to have everything in sync.

I think it's only a problem for you in 9.6-only because you've not tried
pglogical or some other large-shlib extension with earlier branches; in
other words, eventually this is going to bite somebody using the old
branches as well, unless we believe that the platforms are dead enough
that nobody really cares other than for academic purposes.

My vote would be to backpatch it all the way.

--
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ALTER INDEX .. SET STATISTICS ... behaviour
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] TAP backpatching policy