On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 08:04:29AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> FWIW, we have always been kind of sloppy with slightly overestimating
> the shmem size required in the backend code, and here it's just a one.
> I don't see a strong need for a backpatch here. Of course, no
> objections in adjusting that on HEAD.
Agreed.
> Nathan, you are planning to
> take care of that as original author? This should fall under my
> bucket as original committer, but as you were an author, feel free to
> take priority here of course.
I'll take care of it (likely tomorrow).
--
nathan
