Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:00 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, I forgot to mention: while I think the patch to forbid pseudotypes
>> by using CheckAttributeType() can be back-patched, I'm leaning towards
>> not back-patching the other patch. The situation where we get into
>> infinite recursion seems not very likely in practice, and it's not
>> going to cause any crash or data loss, so I think we can just say
>> "sorry that's not supported before v13". The patch as I'm proposing
>> it seems rather invasive for a back-branch fix.
> It is indeed.
> Just to be sure, by going with "unsupported before v13", which one do you
> mean:
> * documenting it as so
> * giving an error in such cases, like the patch in the first email on
> this thread did
> * doing nothing really
I was thinking "do nothing in the back branches". I don't believe we
can detect such cases reliably (at least not without complicated logic,
which'd defeat the point), so I don't think giving an error is actually
feasible, and I doubt that documenting it would be useful. If we get
some field complaints about this, it'd be time enough to reconsider.
regards, tom lane
