On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 6:46 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 3:34 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I feel the use of API before this version was mainly for test-cases as
> > it was not production ready. So, it is less helpful to backpatch
> > 1362bc33e02, if we want, we can backpatch only the worker part of the
> > fix. OTOH, as the issue is not frequent and we have some workaround
> > (at least for more common platforms) as well, we can consider not
> > backpatching it.
>
> I see your point. OTOH, on second thought, if backpatching commit 1362bc33e02
> along with this patch to v17 and v18 *is harmless*, I'd prefer to do so.
>
As such I don't see a problem backpatching commit 1362bc33e02 as it
appears to be a localised change.
> Keeping
> the slotsync shutdown code more consistent across versions would make future
> backpatching easier, and selectively backpatching only parts of the shutdown
> logic would be more complicated and error-prone.
>
I agree with this line of reasoning here or in general as well but
personally I am a bit hesitant to back patch changes which are not
mandatory. In this particular case, I don't see any problem with
backpatching the part of code you want to backpatch, so I leave it to
your judgement.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
