Tom Lane wrote: > Should we consider this HEAD-only, or a back-patchable bug fix? > Or perhaps compromise on HEAD + 9.5?
It looks like a bug to me, but I think it might destabilize approved execution plans(*), so it may not be such a great idea to back patch branches that are already released. I think HEAD + 9.5 is good. (*) I hear there are even applications where queries and their approved execution plans are kept in a manifest, and plans that deviate from that raise all kinds of alarms. I have never seen such a thing ... -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
