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
commit: 6286526207d53e5b31968103adb89b4c9cd21499

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?


Reply via email to