On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:02 AM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 06:33:48PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > In this scenario, since we don't actively *enforce* this version > difference, I think we should apply the fix from #1 in this scenario as > well. Otherwise you might use an old pg_recvlogical to connect to a newer > server, and open up a vulnerability somehow. I assume pg_recvlogical of > that age doesn't actually try to do something with it, but it still feels > safer for the future.
Yeah, there is no actual reason to not apply #1 everywhere as well. The back-patch is a no-brainer.
Applied that way with minor adjustments to the comment.
