On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:07 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If I am not missing anything then that change was in
> > > lazy_cleanup_index and after this patch, it won't be required because
> > > we are using a different variable name.
> > >
> > > I have combined both the patches now.
> > >
> >
> > I am planning to push this tomorrow if there are no further
> > suggestions/comments.
> >
>
> Pushed. Now, coming back to the question of the back patch. I see a
> point in deferring this for 3-6 months or maybe more after PG13 is
> released. OTOH, this implementation is mainly triggered by issues
> reported in this area and this doesn't seem to be a very invasive
> patch which can cause some de-stabilization in back-branches. I am not
> in a hurry to get this backpatched but still, it would be good if this
> can be backpatched earlier as quite a few people (onlist and EDB
> customers) have reported issues that could have been narrowed down if
> this patch is present in back-branches.
>
> It seems Alvaro and I are in favor of backpatch whereas Andres and
> Justin seem to think it should be deferred until this change has seen
> some real-world exposure.
>
> Anyone else wants to weigh in?
>
Seeing no more responses, it seems better to defer this backpatch till
PG13 is out and we get some confidence in this functionality.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com