Robert Haas writes:
> ... I'd lean toward back-patching.
Not hearing any contrary opinions, that's what I've done.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mai
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Although this is a bug fix, it's a nontrivial change in the logic and
>>> so I'm hesitant to back-patch into stable branches. Given the lack of
>>> prior complaints, ma
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Although this is a bug fix, it's a nontrivial change in the logic and
>> so I'm hesitant to back-patch into stable branches. Given the lack of
>> prior complaints, maybe it would be best to leave it unfixed in existing
>> b
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Attached is a proposed patch to deal with the issue described here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-02/msg0.php
>
> Even though we'd previously realized that comparing the text of
> inherited CHECK expressions is an entirely un
