On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote >> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix, >>> backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this behavior change [1]. > >> I could go either way on that. It's not inconceivable somebody could >> be unhappy about seeing this behavior change in a minor release. > > FWIW, I vote with the camp that this is a clear bug and needs to be > fixed. 9.6 broke a behavior that could be relied on before that. > We do not normally hesitate to fix regressions in minor releases. > > (That's not a vote for the patch as submitted; I haven't reviewed it. > But we need to fix this.)
OK. I'm going to commit and back-patch the substantive fix with a comment change, but I'm not going to include Amit's documentation changes for now because I'm not sure they are going to be sufficiently clear. There's not a lot of context for them where he put them. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
