On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2018-03-01 16:18:48 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > On 2018-03-01 12:56:35 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote: > > > I've tried to rebase this patch to 10 and, despite minor rebase issues > > (oids, bgw_type, changes to specscanner), patch works fine. > > > Do we provide backporting for such features? > > > > Definitely not. With very rare exceptions (OS compatibility and the > > like), features aren't backported. > > > > Yeah. And definitely not something that both changes the format of > pg_control (by adding new possible values to the checksum field) *and* adds > a new WAL record type...
And even more so, I'm not even sure it makes sense to try to get this into v11. This is a medium-large complicated feature, submitted to the last CF for v11. That's pretty late. Now, Magnus is a committer, but nevertheless...
See, this is why I'm trying my hardest to avoid scope-creep in it at least :P