Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:43:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 09:41:01PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I think attached v41nm is ready for commit.  Would anyone like to vote against
> > back-patching this?  It's hard to justify lack of back-patch for a data-loss
> > bug, but this is atypically invasive.  (I'm repeating the question, since some
> > folks missed my 2020-02-18 question.)  Otherwise, I'll push this on Saturday.
> 
> The invasiveness of the patch is a concern.  Have you considered a
> different strategy?  For example, we are soon going to be in beta for
> 13, so you could consider committing the patch only on HEAD first.
> If there are issues to take care of, you can then leverage the beta
> testing to address any issues found.  Finally, once some dust has
> settled on the concept and we have gained enough confidence, we could
> consider a back-patch.

No.  Does anyone favor this proposal more than back-patching normally?