On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi=E9 ago 04 12:37:23 -0400 2010:
>> My recollection is that that change was associated with some pretty
>> significant revisions to the postmaster state machine. =A0I'm concerned
>> about the risks involved in back-patching that. =A0This seems to be a
>> corner case with pretty minimal consequences anyway, so I'm inclined
>> to leave 8.2 alone.
>
> IIRC this is the kind of thing that "dead-end backends" were invented
> for. =A0It was too a large patch for backpatching, IMHO.
Though I thought about this issue for a while, I end up agreeing that
the back-patching has a risk.
Regards,
--=20
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
