Hi,
On 2020-03-30 23:28:54 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:43:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 09:41:01PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > I think attached v41nm is ready for commit. Would anyone like to vote against
> > > back-patching this? It's hard to justify lack of back-patch for a data-loss
> > > bug, but this is atypically invasive. (I'm repeating the question, since some
> > > folks missed my 2020-02-18 question.) Otherwise, I'll push this on Saturday.
> >
> > The invasiveness of the patch is a concern. Have you considered a
> > different strategy? For example, we are soon going to be in beta for
> > 13, so you could consider committing the patch only on HEAD first.
> > If there are issues to take care of, you can then leverage the beta
> > testing to address any issues found. Finally, once some dust has
> > settled on the concept and we have gained enough confidence, we could
> > consider a back-patch.
>
> No. Does anyone favor this proposal more than back-patching normally?
I have not reviewed the patch, so I don't have a good feeling for its
riskiness. But it does sound fairly invasive. Given that we've lived
with this issue for many years by now, and that the rate of incidents
seems to have been fairly low, I think living with the issue for a bit
longer to gain confidence might be a good choice. But I'd not push back
if you, being much more informed, think the risk/reward balance favors
immediate backpatching.
Greetings,
Andres Freund