Hi Xuneng and Michael,
Thank you so much for the quick response and for fixing the issue. I saw that the commit has already been merged into master.
I’d like to ask whether this fix will be included in the patch release for version 14 - specifically 14.20. I noticed the commit mentions Backpatch-through: 13, and I want to confirm whether that means the fix will be backpatched to version 13 and all subsequent supported versions.
Thanks again!
Best regards,
Xingguo
Hi, Michael!
On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 12:52 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2025 at 08:44:55AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 1, 2025 at 8:17 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >> Thanks, that looks sensible. I'll revisit what you have at the
> >> beginning of next week (local Tuesday) with a backpatch down to v13 in
> >> mind. If others have comments and/or objections, please feel free to
> >> chime in.
> >
> > It's an oversight. Thanks for catching it.
>
> Phew, done.
Thanks for pushing the patches!
> While looking at the whole thing, I was wondering if we
> should strengthen a little bit what's expected of the context for some
> of the callers of the WAL routines, like XLogShutdownWalRcv(), and
> finished with the bonus patch attached. What do you think?
The change LGTM — it ensures that the walreceiver’s lifecycle is
orchestrated entirely by the startup process.
Best,
Xuneng
