On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:29:03PM +0200, David Fetter wrote: > > While I was fooling with it I noticed that the existing code for -n > > is buggy. The documentation says clearly that only the first > > argument is a candidate to be -n: > > > > If the first argument is an unquoted <literal>-n</literal> the > > trailing > > newline is not written. > > > > but the actual implementation allows any argument to be recognized as > > -n: > > > > regression=# \echo this -n should not be -n like this > > this should not be like thisregression=# > > > > I fixed that, but I'm wondering if we should back-patch that fix > > or leave the back branches alone. > > +0.5 for back-patching.
Uh, if this was done in a major release I am thinking we have to mention this as an incompatibility, which means we should probably not backpatch it. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +