> On Aug 18, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Dave Cramer <p...@fastcrypt.com> writes: >> This is a simple fix why push back ? > > What was being pushed back on, I think, was the claim that this needed to > be back-patched. I'd be inclined not to, since (a) the message is not > wrong, only less specific than it could be,
I know I’m being pedantic on this one, but “technically” not wrong, it’s still incomplete to a user. But... > and (b) people tend to get > annoyed by unnecessary behavior changes in released branches. I will agree with this - thinking about it, people have have coded their apps to work with the existing message and may have logic around handling it. I don’t know how likely that is, but I’m willing to err on the side of caution. > There might be an argument for putting it into v11, but not further back. I’m fine with that. Thanks, Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
