Robert Haas wrote:
> I think my least favorite option is changing the behavior only in
> HEAD. I think the reasonable options are:
>
> 1. Change the behavior in HEAD, 8.4, and 8.3, per previous discussion.
> If we do this, we should do what I proposed in my previous email.
>
> 2. Change the comments and documentation in 8.4 and 8.3 along the
> lines that Simon already did in HEAD. If we do this, we also need to
> change the GUC units to something other than GUC_UNIT_KB, as noted
> upthread. I'm not sure what would be appropriate.
>
> The reason I think it's OK to change the behavior in the back-branches
> is that (a) the only thing it affects is logging, so it shouldn't
> really "break" anything, and (b) apparently nobody has noticed that
> the interpretation of the GUC is off by three orders of magnitude, so
> either nobody's using it or they're not looking at what's actually
> happening too carefully. But I'm OK with going the other way and
> changing the code and docs in the back-branches, too. I just think we
> should be consistent.
I normally don't backpatch anything unless it is either a possible cause
of data loss, or a problem that is reported by multiple people.
Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage
people from performing minor upgrades. Minor fixes are rarely worth the
risk of causing instability in back-branches.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +