On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I was actually thinking in applying to all back-branches, not just pg11,
> considering it a fix for a pretty serious bug. But checking the
> history, it seems that Robert patched this is 9.2 as new development
> (2ad36c4e4, 1489e2f26, cbe24a6dd, 1da5c1195, 74a1d4fe7); holes remained,
> but none was patched until 94da2a6a in pg10 -- took some time! And then
> nobody cared about the ones you're patching now.
>
> So I withdraw my argumentation, mostly because there's clearly not as
> much interest in seeing this fixed as all that.
The original patches would, I think, have been pretty scary to
back-patch, since the infrastructure didn't exist in older branches
and we were churning a fairly large amount of code. Now that most
places are fixed and things have had five years to bake, we could
conceivably back-patch the remaining fixes. However, I wonder if
we've really looked into how many instances of this problem remain.
If there's still ten more that we haven't bothered to fix,
back-patching one or two that we've gotten around to doing something
about doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company