On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Another reason I'm not in a hurry is that the problem we're trying
>> to solve doesn't seem to be causing real-world trouble. So by
>> "awhile", I'm thinking "let's let it get through 9.4 beta testing".
>
> Well, there have been a bunch of customer complaints about it, afair
> that's what made Alvaro look into it in the first place. So it's not a
> victimless bug.
Well, can any of those people try running with this patch? That'd be
a good way of getting some confidence in it.
Generally, I agree that something needs to be back-patched here. But
we don't want to create a situation where we fix some people and break
others, and it's not too obvious that we have a way to get there.
Personally, I favor adding some kind of GUC to control the behavior,
but I'm not exactly sure what the shape of it ought to be.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
