Re: snapshot too old, configured by time

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I understand the backpatching pain argument, but my opinion was the
>> contrary of yours even so.

> The other possibility would be to backpatch the no-op patch which
> just uses the new syntax without any change in semantics.

That would break 3rd-party extensions in a minor release, wouldn't it?
Or do I misunderstand your suggestion?
        regards, tom lane