Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYfqRTPmJcGSBJwUDJuR6TfpvVZrJF_=f9x+8SAvdPTgw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Any thoughts what to do with this?  We could decide that it's a bug fix
>> and backpatch, or decide that it's a new feature and delay till 9.7,
>> or decide that it's a minor bug fix and add it to 9.6 only.  I kinda lean
>> towards the last alternative.
>
> How about backpatching patch 1 all the way back, and putting the others
> in 9.6?

Why would we do that?  It seems very odd to back-patch a pure
refactoring - isn't that taking a risk for no benefit?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: what to revert