On 2020/05/08 14:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/05/07 17:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:13 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2020/05/02 20:40, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any obvious problem with the changed code but we normally
>>>> don't backpatch performance improvements. I can see that the code
>>>> change here appears to be straight forward so it might be fine to
>>>> backpatch this. Have we seen similar reports earlier as well? AFAIK,
>>>> this functionality is for a long time and if people were facing this
>>>> on a regular basis then we would have seen such reports multiple
>>>> times. I mean to say if the chances of this hitting are less then we
>>>> can even choose not to backpatch this.
>>>
>>> I found the following two reports. ISTM there are not so many reports...
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16159-f5a34a3a04dc67e0@postgresql.org
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dd6690b0-ec03-6b3c-6fac-c963f91f87a7%40postgrespro.ru
>>>
>>
>> The first seems to be the same where this bug has been fixed. It has
>> been moved to hackers in email [1].
>
> Yes, that's the original report that leaded to the commit.
>
>> Am, I missing something?
>> Considering it has been encountered by two different people, I think
>> it would not be a bad idea to back-patch this.
>
> +1 So I will do the back-patch.
Done. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION