On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 7:48 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:00:30PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > Does that mean you think we should fix the issue at hand differently? > > Say, by looking at number of columns and building the correct tuple, > > like I did in my initial patch? > > 691e8b2e18 is not something I would have done when it comes to > pageinspect, FWIW. There is the superuser argument for this module, > so I'd vote for an error and apply the same policy across all branches > as a matter of consistency.
691e8b2e18 was the one that threw the error? -- Peter Geoghegan
