Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong

"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I didn't think it merited back-patching.  It's strictly cosmetic in
>> terms of being about what VACUUM VERBOSE prints, no?

> Umm.. Whatever we decide on the fix, I think we should backpatch it to
> 8.3 because I am worried that someone way get completely confused with
> the current vacuum report,

"Somebody might misread an optional report" doesn't seem to me to be on
the same risk level as "we might destabilize a stable release".  The
policy of this project is that we only put nontrivial bug fixes into
back branches, and I don't think this item qualifies ...

            regards, tom lane