On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:13 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020/05/02 20:40, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I don't see any obvious problem with the changed code but we normally
> > don't backpatch performance improvements. I can see that the code
> > change here appears to be straight forward so it might be fine to
> > backpatch this. Have we seen similar reports earlier as well? AFAIK,
> > this functionality is for a long time and if people were facing this
> > on a regular basis then we would have seen such reports multiple
> > times. I mean to say if the chances of this hitting are less then we
> > can even choose not to backpatch this.
>
> I found the following two reports. ISTM there are not so many reports...
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16159-f5a34a3a04dc67e0@postgresql.org
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dd6690b0-ec03-6b3c-6fac-c963f91f87a7%40postgrespro.ru
>
The first seems to be the same where this bug has been fixed. It has
been moved to hackers in email [1]. Am, I missing something?
Considering it has been encountered by two different people, I think
it would not be a bad idea to back-patch this.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200129.120222.1476610231001551715.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
