On 02/20/2014 04:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +1 for back-patching.
>> Back-patching would be interesting for existing applications, but -1
>> as it is a new feature :)
>
> I think that it rises to the level of an omission in 9.3 that now
> requires correction. Many of our users couldn't run pg_controldata
> even if they'd heard of it...
We seem to have +Many against -1, so back-patched it now.
- Heikki