Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken)
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEzMf+cFQk=kX41Zx5O=GN3nH8EsPPL3r_J8HYfHjnLGwA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken) (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken)
Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. But if it does work out well in the end, then we can certainly consider backpatching it. But given the difficulty in reliably reproducing the problem etc, I think it's a good idea to give it some proper real world experience in 10 first.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: