Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> writes:
> Any thoughts on back-patching this? It's entirely cosmetic and could help
> avoid some back-patching pain down the road. I originally chose not to
> back-patch because it's not a bug and "namspace" has been there for a very
> long time, but now I'm having second thoughts...
AFAICS, it could only cause back-patching pain if we were to
back-patch something that changes the signature of
transformRelOptions(), which seems mighty unlikely.
So I wouldn't bother.
regards, tom lane
