Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm slightly worried about breaking 3rd-party code that might be using
>> recv() and somehow expecting the current behavior. However, it's equally
>> arguable that such code would have Windows-specific problems that would be
>> fixed by the patch. Now that we've seen a successful round of buildfarm
>> results, I'd be okay with back-patching 90e61df8 personally.
>>
>> Any other opinions out there?
> Maybe holdoff until the release with the new code has been out for a while,
> but make sure we get it into the next set of minors? That'll give us at
> least some real world deployment to notice any issues with it?
Well, we could push it now before we forget about it, and we'd still have
exactly that result, given that the next set of minors are scheduled for
early February. If there is anything badly wrong we should hear about
it from early adopters of 9.5.
regards, tom lane