On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 1:46 PM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > No, you're right, although I think it's implied. Maybe we need a > statement along these lines:
I agree with that, but to me it's more in the scope of what is expected of committers in general. At a very high level. So it's not something that I'd expect to see on the RMT Postgres Wiki page. I would expect to see it on the committers Wiki page, somewhere like that. > If they are fine by you then I accept that. After all, the reason we > want you to deal with this is not only that you made the original commit > but because you're the expert in this area. +1. Nobody questioned the original commit, so it would be premature (if not totally arbitrary) to change our approach now, at the first sign of trouble. To the best of my knowledge there is no special risk with applying this patch to address the behavioral inconsistencies, nor is there any known special risk with any other fix. Including even deciding to *not* fix the inconsistency in Postgres 14 based on practical considerations -- for all I know Michael might be perfectly justified in interpreting the patch as new feature work that's out of scope now. I don't feel qualified to even offer an opinion. -- Peter Geoghegan
