On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 1:05 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 4:03 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 10:29 PM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022, at 5:37 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, it seems we have overlooked this point. I think we can do this
> > > just for HEAD but as the feature is introduced in PG-15 so there is
> > > no harm in pushing it to PG-15 as well especially because it is a
> > > straightforward change. What do you or others think?
> > >
> > > No objection. It is a good thing for future backpatches.
> > >
> >
> > Since there is no function change or bugfix here I thought it was only
> > applicable for HEAD. This change is almost in the same category as a
> > code comment typo patch - do those normally get backpatched? - maybe
> > follow the same convention here. OTOH, if you think it may be helpful
> > for future backpatches then I am also fine if you wanted to push it to
> > PG15.
> >
>
> It can help if there is any bug-fix in the same code path or if some other
> code
> adjustment in the same area is required in the back branch.
> I feel the chances of both are less but I just wanted to keep the code
> consistent
> for such a possibility. Anyway, I'll wait for a day or so and see if anyone
> has
> objections to it.
Thank you all for catching and discussing this fix.
I also agree with pushing it to PG-15 for comfortability of future backpatches.
Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi
