On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure if project policy around backpatching (that commit
>> messages and so on should match exactly) has anything to say about the
>> case where backpatching follows several weeks after commit to the
>> master branch. In the absence of any clear direction on that, I've
>> created commits that look like what Peter E might have pushed in early
>> April, had he decided to do that backpatch leg-work up front.
>
> It seems to me that we definitely want to get this stuff backpatched
> at the end. So +1 for this move.
Right. This issue has a long history of causing users significant
(though often intermittent) problems. As an example, consider this
problem report from a co-worker of mine that dates back to 2012:
https://bitbucket.org/ged/ruby-pg/issues/142/async_exec-over-ssl-connection-can-fail-on
There are numerous problem reports like this that are easily found
using Google. I think that there are probably a variety of unpleasant
interactions and symptoms. Crashes are one rarer symptom, seen in
certain scenarios only (crashes are not described in the link above).
--
Peter Geoghegan
