On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:33 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com <shiy.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 2:40 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 11:06 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > >>> We could just not fix it in the back branches. I'd argue that this is > > > >>> as much a definition change as a bug fix, so it doesn't really feel > > > >>> like something to back-patch anyway. > > > > > > > So, if we don't backpatch then it could lead to an error when it > > > > shouldn't have which is clearly a bug. I think we should backpatch > > > > this unless Tom or others are against it. > > > > > > This isn't a hill that I'm ready to die on ... but do we have any field > > > complaints about this? If not, I still lean against a back-patch. > > > I think there's a significant risk of breaking case A while fixing > > > case B when we change this behavior, and that's something that's > > > better done only in a major release. > > > > > > > Fair enough, but note that there is a somewhat related problem for > > dropped columns [1] as well. While reviewing that it occurred to me > > that generated columns also have a similar problem which leads to this > > thread (it would have been better if there is a mention of the same in > > the initial email). Now, as symptoms are similar, I think we shouldn't > > back-patch that as well, otherwise, it will appear to be partially > > fixed. What do you think? > > > > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message- > > id/OSZPR01MB631087C65BA81E1FEE5A60D2FDF59%40OSZPR01MB6310.jpnpr > > d01.prod.outlook.com > > > > I agree to only fix them on HEAD. > > I merged this patch and the one in [1] as they are similar problems. Please > see the attached patch. >
Pushed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
