Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 06/21/2018 01:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'm thinking that the attidentity code is just wrong, and you should
>> change that too while you're at it.
> That should be backpatched if changed, no? I don't think we'd want this
> to get out of sync between the branches. It would make later
> backpatching more difficult for one thing.
If you feel like it. But if there's attmissingval code right next to it
as of v11, then backpatches wouldn't apply cleanly anyway due to lack of
context match, so I doubt there's really much gain to be had.
regards, tom lane
