On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think this kind of black-and-white thinking is very helpful.
> Obviously, data corruption is bad. However, this bug has (from what
> one can tell from this thread) been with us for over a decade; it must
> necessarily be either low-probability or low-severity, or somebody
> would've found it and fixed it before now. Indeed, the discovery of
> this bug was driven by new feature development, not a user report. It
> seems pretty clear that if we try to patch this and get it wrong, the
> effects of our mistake could easily be a lot more serious than the
> original bug.
+1. The fact that it wasn't driven by a user report convinces me that
this is the way to go.
--
Peter Geoghegan
