On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Here is a version that includes an attempt to describe the
>> situation in the documentation.
> Pushed with minor adjustments to the docs.  Mostly I thought your
> new text was more appropriate as just another paragraph than as a
> "note".  The previous paragraph was a little imprecise and was in
> some conflict with the new one, so I adjusted that a little, too.
> Nice work!  I sure wish we had spotted that a one-line check there
> would have covered so much when the feature was first added.
> I understand there is considerable feeling that this should be
> back-patched, but I have not done that pending a clear consensus on
> the point, since it is a user-visible behavioral change.

I think that's a good call.  Conservatism in back-patching is entirely

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to