Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>> It's unclear to me whether to push ahead with Daniel's existing
>> patch or not. It doesn't look to me like it's making things
>> any worse from the error-consistency standpoint than they were
>> already, so I'd be inclined to consider error semantics cleanup
>> as something to be done separately/later.
> Fine.
OK. I fixed the error-cleanup issue and pushed it.
The patch applied cleanly back to 9.5, but the code for \g is a good
bit different in 9.4. I didn't have the interest to try to make the
patch work with that, so I just left 9.4 alone.
regards, tom lane
