On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I think the real question here is, shall we backpatch this fix or we
>> > want to do this just in Head or we want to consider it as a new
>> > feature for PostgreSQL-11. I think it should be fixed in Head and the
>> > change seems harmless to me, so we should even backpatch it.
>>
>> The thing is not invasive, so backpatching is a low-risk move. We can
>> as well get that into HEAD first, wait a bit for dust to settle on it,
>> and then backpatch.
>
>
>
> I would definitely suggest putting it in HEAD (and thus, v10) for a while to
> get some real world exposure before backpatching.
>
make sense to me, so I have added an entry in "Older Bugs" section in
PostgreSQL 10 Open Items.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
