Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:47:46 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, huseyin.d3r@gmail.com, 
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19393: pg_upgrade fails with duplicate key violation when
 CHECK constraint named *_not_null exists
Message-ID: <202602231541.tcrufawcdbne@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <aZp6mrxzlNc1KmRf@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202602231541.tcrufawcdbne%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-Feb-22, Michael Paquier wrote:

> While I get the feeling of urgency, I am wondering if this particular
> fix should have been delayed and pushed for next May's release.  We
> are already doing one quick release for the regressions found in the
> CVE fixes..

I debated that with myself before pushing.  I thought the risk of
introducing a new bug or problem was pretty low; whereas the bug was
clearly already affecting real-world users in their attempts to migrate
to 18 from earlier versions, so the damage was real.

> Based on my read of the fix, I feel rather safe that this is OK.  But
> as I have quoted upthread, the reason why I did not reply yet was to
> wait for next week's release to be out before acting.  That's your
> code of course, so no objections from here, just a slight doubt about
> the timing.

Hmm, what?  The only response from you that I see in this thread is
https://postgr.es/m/aYp9tTWjUqS1ffAd@paquier.xyz
which was on Feb 10th, which is before the 18.2 release, so you couldn't
have been considering the 18.3 release yet.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"On the other flipper, one wrong move and we're Fatal Exceptions"
(T.U.X.: Term Unit X  - http://www.thelinuxreview.com/TUX/)