From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |
Date: | 2014-09-11 22:40:47 |
Message-ID: | 20140911224047.GD4081@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:58:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:24:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> >> I think the reason nobody's responding is because nobody has anything
> >> significant to add. It's a behavior change from not-working to
> >> working. Why wouldn't it be backpatched?
>
> > OK, Greg seems to be passionate about this. Does anyone _object_ to my
> > back-patching the epoch preservation fix through 9.3. Tom?
>
> Not I. This is a data-loss bug fix, no? Why would we not back-patch it?
Seems I was thinking of another pg_upgrade feature we decided not to
backpatch, though I can't find it now.
Backpatched through 9.3.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-11 22:41:51 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2014-09-11 22:35:58 | Suspicious check (src/backend/access/gin/gindatapage.c) |