On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:38:47PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Dave Cramer <p...@fastcrypt.com> wrote: >> I was referring to: >> >> "Materialized views are a type of relation so it is not wrong, just one >> of many instances where we generalize to "relation" based in implementation >> details ins team of being explicit about which type of relation is being >> affected." >> >> As being push back. >> >> I don't have an opinion on back patching this. > > I was arguing against back patching on the basis of defining this as a > bug. It's not wrong nor severe enough to warrant the side effects others > have noted.
I am not so sure about v11 as it is very close to release, surely we can do something for HEAD as that's cosmetic. Anyway, if something is proposed, could a patch be posted? The only patch I am seeing on this thread refers to improvements for error messages of procedures. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
