> On 26 Oct 2026, at 21:22, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> writes: >>> On 26 Oct 2026, at 20:45, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Given the lack of field complaints, I'm inclined to leave it as-is >>> in released branches (maybe it's not too late for v19, though). > >> If we're leaving it as-is in backbranches, wouldn't it be better to opt for >> consistency and leave it in 19 as well and only adjust the documentation? > > I don't particularly want to document the broken behavior (especially > if we'd have to further document that it will change in v20). That > would just contribute to user confusion. If you want docs to match > code I'd rather back-patch the code change.
Ah, I misread and thought you were advocating for what you clearly wanted to avoid. Given the lack of complaints then +1 for at most fixing in 19. Backpatching takes a non-trivial amount of time, which really isn't a commodity we have plenty of. -- Daniel Gustafsson
