Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Date
Msg-id 48AB5CDE.5060802@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures  ("Asko Oja" <ascoja@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, there are a whole lot more considerations in a backpatch decision
> than just "is it a bug".  The (estimated) risk of creating new bugs and
> the extent to which the patch will change behavior that apps might be
> relying on are two big reasons why we might choose not to back-patch
> a bug fix.
>
>
>   

Right. And even if it is a bug the question might be "what sort of bug 
is it?" We might well be prepared to take some risks with code stability 
to plug security or data corruption bugs, a lot more than we would for 
other sorts of bugs. Even if this were considered a bug instead of a 
limitation, it doesn't come into the class of things we should be 
rushing to fix in the stable branches, unless the fix is fairly obvious 
and of limited impact, which is clearly not the case.

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures