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 warranted. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers