On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 05:44:52PM -0400, David Steele wrote: > On 1/25/24 17:42, Tom Lane wrote: >> We're talking about 1d35f705e, right? That certainly looks harmless >> and potentially useful. I'm +1 for back-patching. > > That's the one. If we were modifying existing messages I would be against > it, but new, infrequent (but oh so helpful) messages seem fine.
Well, I'm OK with this consensus on 1d35f705e if folks think this is useful enough for all the stable branches. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
