On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > In any case I think your patch is a good starting point. > > The comments seemed to need some wordsmithing, but I think this is > probably basically a good idea; we've had similar complaints before > about some other equality-less datatypes, such as point. > > Should we consider this HEAD-only, or a back-patchable bug fix? > Or perhaps compromise on HEAD + 9.5? > I failed to realize that the complaint I've referred to regarding all too wide samples was addressed back then by this commit: 6286526207d53e5b31968103adb89b4c9cd21499 For what it's worth, that time the decision was "This has been like this since roughly neolithic times, so back-patch to all supported branches." Does the same logic not apply here? -- Alex
