Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken)
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+fGw7HEpaUGskF2C2yFWVfCouK3OXpZ=NhYqgQ1dp+4A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken) (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I think the real question here is, shall we backpatch this fix or we >> > want to do this just in Head or we want to consider it as a new >> > feature for PostgreSQL-11. I think it should be fixed in Head and the >> > change seems harmless to me, so we should even backpatch it. >> >> The thing is not invasive, so backpatching is a low-risk move. We can >> as well get that into HEAD first, wait a bit for dust to settle on it, >> and then backpatch. > > > > I would definitely suggest putting it in HEAD (and thus, v10) for a while to > get some real world exposure before backpatching. > make sense to me, so I have added an entry in "Older Bugs" section in PostgreSQL 10 Open Items. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: