On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:34:10 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
>> > Agreed. Attached patches do that and I could "recover" the
>> > database state with following steps,
>>
>> Adding new option looks like new feature rather than bug fix.
>> I'm afraid that the backpatch of such a change to 9.3 or before
>> is not acceptable.
>
> Me too. But on the other hand it simplly is a relief for the
> consequence of the behavior of server (altough it was ill
> operation:), and especially it is needed for at least 9.1 which
> seems cannot be saved without it. Plus it has utterly no impact
> on servers' behavior of any corresponding versions. So I hope it
> is accepted.
Even in 9.1, we can think that problematic situation as database corruption
and restart the server from the backup which was successfully taken before.
No?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao