On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 08:39:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2018-01-05 18:57:55 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 03:51:15PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>> Also, leaving translatability aside, why was *any* of this backpatched?
>
> >> Tom has preferred that I backpatch all safe patches so we keep that code
> >> consistent so we can backpatch other things more easily.
>
> > I've a hard time believing this. Tom?
>
> I've been known to back-patch stuff just to keep branches consistent,
> but it's always a judgement call. In this case I wouldn't have done it
> (even if the patch were a good idea in HEAD) because it would cause
> churn in translatable messages in the back branches. Also, the case
> for cosmetic back-patching is only strong when a particular file is
> already pretty similar across all branches, and I'm not sure that
> holds for pg_upgrade.
There was a time when pg_upgrade was similar in all branches and
churning a lot with fixes, so I was going on that plan. At this point I
don't think that is true anymore, so maybe we can switch just to head
and PG 10 on this.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
