On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 01:55:55PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On February 19, 2016 2:42:08 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > > wrote: > >>> I think we should fix it, but not backpatch. > >> > >>I don't think that's particularly good policy. It's a clear bug, why > >>would we not fix it? Leaving it as-is in the back branches can have > >>no good effect, and what it does do is create a merge hazard for other > >>back-patchable bug fixes in the same area. > > > > Agreed. > > +1. I think this is clearly a back-patchable fix.
Fix applied to head and 9.5. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers