On 2016-02-11 08:50:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Are we thinking to back-patch this? I would be disinclined to > back-patch widespread changes like this. If there's a specific > instance related to Gin where this is causing a tangible problem, we > could back-patch just that part, with a clear description of that > problem. Otherwise, I think this should be master-only.
I'm not sure. It's pretty darn nasty that right now we fail in some places in the code if stdbool.h is included previously. That's probably going to become more and more common. On the other hand it's invasive, as you say. Partially patching things doesn't seem like a really viable approach to me, bugs caused by this are hard to find/trigger. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers