Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I do not know at this point whether these behaviors are really the same
>>> bug or not, but I wonder whether it's time to consider back-patching the
>>> renegotiation fixes we did in 9.4. Specifically, I think maybe we should
>>> back-patch 31cf1a1a4, 86029b31e, and 36a3be654.
> Yes, +1 for backpatching. Don't forget 5674460b and b1aebbb6.
Huh? 5674460b is ancient, and we concluded that b1aebbb6 didn't represent
anything much more than cosmetic fixes.
regards, tom lane
