On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 12:41 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:20 PM Melanie Plageman > <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > > yikes, you are right about the "reason" member. Attached 0002 removes > > it, and I'll go ahead and fix it in the back branches too. > > I think changing this in the back-branches is a super-bad idea. If you > want, you can add a comment in the back-branches saying "oops, we > shipped a field that isn't used for anything", but changing the struct > definition is very likely to make 0 people happy and >0 people > unhappy. On the other hand, changing this in master is a good idea and > you should go ahead and do that before this creates any more > confusion.
Yes, that makes 100% sense. It should have occurred to me. I've pushed the commit to master. I didn't put an updated set of patches here in case someone was already reviewing them, as nothing else has changed. - Melanie
