On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 01:03:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Here's a v2 that does it like that. In this formulation, we're > basically hoisting the responsibility for doing copyObject up into > ProcessUtility from its direct children, which seems like a clearer > way of thinking about what has to change.
I agree that forcing an API break is better. Just a nit: + * readOnlyTree: treat pstmt's node tree as read-only Maybe it's because I'm not a native english speaker, or because it's quite late here, but I don't find "treat as read-only" really clear. I don't have a concise better wording to suggest. > Still thinking about which way to fix it in the back branches. I'm +0.5 for a narrow fix, due to the possibility of unspotted similar problem vs possibility of performance regression ratio.
