| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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 20:58:12 |
| Message-ID: | 24502.1410469092@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-11 21:00:25 | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-09-11 20:53:38 | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |