On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> That is unfortunate. I guess it points out the value of adding a
> comment to point out why we would want to check these values even on
> a reset to a previously-used value.
+1 for such a comment.
>> I assume that you're thinking we'd only fix this in master?
>
> Without this, I don't think it's possible for someone to enforce
> protection of their data through SSI in an ironclad way. So there
> is at least some case to be made to take it back as far as 9.1.
I'm OK with that, but perhaps the only-tangentially-related changes
where you swap the order of certain error messages ought to be
separated out and committed only to master? That stuff doesn't seem
like material for a back-patch.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
