On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
>> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch.  I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
>>> backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this behavior change [1].
>> I could go either way on that.  It's not inconceivable somebody could
>> be unhappy about seeing this behavior change in a minor release.
> FWIW, I vote with the camp that this is a clear bug and needs to be
> fixed.  9.6 broke a behavior that could be relied on before that.
> We do not normally hesitate to fix regressions in minor releases.
> (That's not a vote for the patch as submitted; I haven't reviewed it.
> But we need to fix this.)

OK.  I'm going to commit and back-patch the substantive fix with a
comment change, but I'm not going to include Amit's documentation
changes for now because I'm not sure they are going to be sufficiently
clear.  There's not a lot of context for them where he put them.

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