Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could consider back-patching the attached to cover this, but
>> I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble, because I haven't
>> thought of any non-silly use-cases
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We could consider back-patching the attached to cover this, but
> I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble, because I haven't
> thought of any non-silly use-cases in the absence of domains
> over composite. Comments?