Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 06:05:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. Whether it's efficient or not, seems like it should *work*.
>> I'm a bit inclined to call this a bug-fix and backpatch it.
> LGTM. I have no opinion on back-patching.
I had second thoughts about back-patching: doing so would encourage
extensions to rely on this working in pre-v16 branches, which they'd
better not since they might be in a not-up-to-date installation.
We could still squeeze this into v15 without creating such a hazard,
but post-rc1 doesn't seem like a good time for inessential tweaks.
Hence, pushed to HEAD only.
regards, tom lane
