Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: > On 5 August 2016 at 21:48, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> OK, thanks. What shall we do about Andreas' request to back-patch this? >> I'm personally willing to do it, but there is the old bugaboo of "maybe >> it will destabilize a plan that someone is happy with".
> My inclination would be to back-patch it because arguably it's a > bug-fix -- at the very least the old behaviour didn't match the docs > for stadistinct: Yeah. I suspect that situations like this are pretty rare, or we'd have recognized the problem sooner. And at least for Andreas, it'd be fixing a real problem. I'll apply the back-patch unless I hear objections in the next couple of hours. > Additionally, I think that example is misleading because it's only > really true if there are no null values in the column. Perhaps it > would help to have a more explicit example to illustrate how nulls > affect stadistinct, for example: Good idea, will do. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers