On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 06:33:48PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> In this scenario, since we don't actively *enforce* this version
> difference, I think we should apply the fix from #1 in this scenario as
> well. Otherwise you might use an old pg_recvlogical to connect to a newer
> server, and open up a vulnerability somehow. I assume pg_recvlogical of
> that age doesn't actually try to do something with it, but it still feels
> safer for the future.
Yeah, there is no actual reason to not apply #1 everywhere as well. The
back-patch is a no-brainer.
--
Michael
