"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I didn't think it merited back-patching. It's strictly cosmetic in >> terms of being about what VACUUM VERBOSE prints, no? > Umm.. Whatever we decide on the fix, I think we should backpatch it to > 8.3 because I am worried that someone way get completely confused with > the current vacuum report, "Somebody might misread an optional report" doesn't seem to me to be on the same risk level as "we might destabilize a stable release". The policy of this project is that we only put nontrivial bug fixes into back branches, and I don't think this item qualifies ... regards, tom lane
