On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > In any case I think your patch is a good starting point.
> The comments seemed to need some wordsmithing, but I think this is
> probably basically a good idea; we've had similar complaints before
> about some other equality-less datatypes, such as point.
> Should we consider this HEAD-only, or a back-patchable bug fix?
> Or perhaps compromise on HEAD + 9.5?
I failed to realize that the complaint I've referred to regarding all too
wide samples was addressed back then by this
For what it's worth, that time the decision was "This has been like this
since roughly neolithic times, so back-patch to all supported branches."
Does the same logic not apply here?