Re: Re: Proposed Windows-specific change: Enable crash dumps (like core files)
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-11-22T17:30:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > I don't see why an upgrading aid would be worthy of back-patching, but > not a debugging aid. I'd certainly prioritize those in the other > order. I think the sort of upgrading aid Peter has in mind is the kind where it's entirely useless if it's not back-patched, because it has to run in the pre-upgraded server. We've discussed such things before in the context of in-place upgrade, though I believe there have been no actual instances as yet. I'm not really sure why we're even considering the notion of back-patching this item. Doing so would not fit with any past practice or agreed-on project management practices, not even under our lax standards for contrib (and I keep hearing people claim that contrib is or should be as trustworthy as core, anyway). Since when do we back-patch significant features that have not been through a beta test cycle? regards, tom lane