On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:43:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, we do not need to have a backwards-compatibility problem
> here, because we have yet to release a version containing
> log_statement_sample_rate. I do not think it's too late to decide
> that v12's semantics for that are broken, and either revert that
> patch in v12, or back-patch a fix to make it match this idea.
With my RTM hat on, if we think that the current semantics of
log_statement_sample_rate are broken and need a redesign, then I would
take the safest path and just revert the original patch in v12, and
finally make sure that it brews correctly for v13. We are in beta2
and close to a beta3, so redesigning things at this stage on a stable
branch sounds wrong.
--
Michael
