On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> It's a behavior change, so I don't think we would consider a back-patch. > > Maybe not, but at the very least we should consider getting it fixed in > 9.5 rather than waiting a full development cycle. Same as in > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150428131549.ga25...@momjian.us > I'm not saying we MUST include it in 9.5, but we should at least > consider it. If we simply stash it in the open CF we guarantee that it > will linger there for a year.
Sure, if somebody has the time to put into it now, I'm fine with that. I'm afraid it won't be me, though: even if I had the time, I don't know enough about encodings. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
