On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:26:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Poking at that, I find that a1a789eb5 back-patches reasonably painlessly
> into v11 and v10, but trying to bring it back to 9.6 encounters a pile of
> merge failures. Also, looking at the git logs shows that we did a hell
> of a lot of subtle work on that code (libpqwalreceiver.c in particular)
> during the v10 cycle. So I've got no confidence that successful
> buildfarm/beta1 testing of the HEAD patch means much of anything for
> putting it into pre-v10 branches.
>
> Given that we've seen few if any field reports of this issue, my
> inclination is to back-patch as far as v10, but not take the risk
> and effort involved in going further.
+1 for only a back-patch to v10 per the invasiveness argument. I
think that you have made the right move here.
--
Michael
