On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 at 20:18, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:18 AM Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Overall, I'm quite happy with these results. The question is, should > > this be back-patched? > > > > In the past, I think I've only back-patched numeric bug-fixes where > > the digits output by the old code were incorrect or an error was > > thrown, not changes that resulted in a different number of digits > > being output, changing the precision of already-correct results. > > However, having 10.0^(-18) produce zero seems pretty bad, so my > > inclination is to back-patch, unless anyone objects. > > I don't think that back-patching is a very good idea. The bar for > changing query results should be super-high. Applications can depend > on the existing behavior even if it's wrong. >
OK, on reflection, I think that makes sense. Applied to HEAD only. Regards, Dean
