From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER SYSTEM RESET? |
Date: | 2014-09-12 14:44:27 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGkfWGVKL0Sz4DVq9BfJObjhyhgh5FJ8E03atgzC7cQRA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de> wrote:
>> Re: Vik Fearing 2014-09-02 <5405D2D9(dot)9050801(at)dalibo(dot)com>
>>> > Uhm, are we agreed on the decision on not to backpatch this? I would
>>> > think this should have been part of the initial ALTER SYSTEM SET patch
>>> > and thus should be backpatched to 9.4.
>>>
>>> I think it belongs in 9.4 as well, especially if we're having another beta.
>>
>> My original complaint was about 9.4, so I'd like to see it there, yes.
>
> ISTM that the consensus is to do the back-patch to 9.4.
> Does anyone object to the back-patch? If not, I will do that.
Done because no one voiced objection against the back-patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-09-12 14:53:06 | Re: pgcrypto: PGP signatures |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-09-12 14:38:17 | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |