On 08/04/2015 02:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>> On 2015-08-04 13:52:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Not sure whether we should consider it a back-patchable bug fix or
>>>> something to do only in HEAD, though --- comments?
>>> Tentatively I'd say it's a bug and should be back-patched.
>> Agreed. If investigation turns up reasons to worry about
>> back-patching it, I'd possibly back-track on that position, but I
>> think we should start with the notion that it is back-patchable and
>> retreat from that position only at need.
> OK. Certainly we can fix 9.5 the same way as HEAD; the pg_dump code
> hasn't diverged much yet. I'll plan to push it as far back as convenient,
> but I won't expend any great effort on making the older branches do it if
> they turn out to be too different.
>
>
From my POV 9.5 is the one that's most critical, because it's the one
that introduced a regression test that leaves a shell type lying around.
But "as far back as convenient" works for me.
cheers
andrew
