Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Another idea would be to invent a new external flag bit "INV_WRITE_ONLY", >> so that people who wanted true write-only could get it, without breaking >> backwards-compatible behavior. But I'm inclined to wait for some field >> demand to show up before adding even that little bit of complication.
> Demand that may never show up, and the current behavior on HEAD does > not receive any complains either. I am keeping the patch simple for > now. That's less aspirin needed for everybody. Looks good to me, pushed. 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