On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:59 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:40 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/23/21, 11:26 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > > On 2021-Sep-23, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 9/22/21 20:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:06 AM Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Any chance of back-patching this?
> > >> >
> > >> > Normally, we don't back-patch code improvements unless they fix some
> > >> > bug or avoid future back-patch efforts. So, I am not inclined to
> > >> > back-patch this but if others also feel strongly about this then we
> > >> > can consider it.
> > >>
> > >> The original thread about the logical replication bugs spawned a few
> > >> different threads and code changes. The other code changes coming out of
> > >> those threads were all back-patched, but I guess I can see arguments
> > >> both ways on this one.
> > >
> > > I think that for patches that are simple debugging aids we do
> > > backpatch, with the intent to get them deployed in users' systems as
> > > soon and as widely possible. I did that in this one, for example
> >
> > +1 for back-patching
> >
>
> I can take care of backpatching this in the next few days unless there
> is any objection.
>
Done.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
