+1
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Is this a backpatchable bug fix, or are we considering this only for
> the
> >> > master branch?
> >>
> >> It would be good to get that backpatched, that's something we really
> >> miss now IMO. Now it modifies libpgcommon, so Windows packagers (me
> >> being one) will certainly need to patch a bit stuff but that's a
> >> one-line changer so it's not a big deal. And I imagine that this is
> >> actually the reason why Asif reported that as a bug as well.
> >
> > I think it'd be better to patch only pg_upgrade in back branches, so
> > that there are no libpgcommon changes. Seems that would make life
> > easier for packagers (See the \connect thread, where Robert opined that
> > it'd be better to duplicate some routines in back branches rather than
> > refactor libpq code and move the common code to pgcommon. I didn't
> > completely agree with him at the time, but now that you mention
> > packagers pain, maybe he has a point.)
> >
> > So let's do the refactoring in the master branch only, and duplicate
> > the code in back branches. Nasty, but it seems the more robust
> > approach.
>
> This plan sounds fine to me.
> --
> Michael
>
