Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> ... That was a small change in a utility that should never be run on a
> production system. You're trying to get a change made to the code path
> people rely on for their *backups*. Good luck with that.
While I quite agree with Greg's comments about not changing stable
release branches unnecessarily, it seems that there's another
consideration in this case. If we don't back-patch %r then users
will have to rely on hacky scripts like the one posted upthread.
Is that really a net gain in reliability?
(I'm honestly not sure of the answer; I'm just thinking it might
be open to debate. In particular I don't remember how complicated
the patch to add %r was.)
regards, tom lane
