Hi,
On 2019-07-10 13:51:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 05:46:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Hmm ... so what that commit did is precisely to fix this bug.
> > Magnus thought at the time he was fixing a pg10 bug,
> > https://postgr.es/m/CABUevEwX4g8y=gmgfPzxFKS7gqjSYNR949Xc96OQm=YXJmh_Og@mail.gmail.com
> > but apparently now we see that the bug was older than that. Maybe it's
> > okay to backpatch further?
>
> Yes, I would not be against a back-patch in this case. There is a
> minor conflict because pre-9.6 WAL senders cannot run SQL queries but
> that looks simple enough to solve.
I'm not worried about backpatching that in isolation - but I'm worried
that just backpatching that indidividual commit isn't going to yield
particularly satisfactory behaviour. The code around this isn't super
robust, and pg10+ are noticably different due to the changes needed to
allow to execute normal queries over a replication connection.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
