On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:29:03PM +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > While I was fooling with it I noticed that the existing code for -n
> > is buggy. The documentation says clearly that only the first
> > argument is a candidate to be -n:
> >
> > If the first argument is an unquoted <literal>-n</literal> the trailing
> > newline is not written.
> >
> > but the actual implementation allows any argument to be recognized as
> > -n:
> >
> > regression=# \echo this -n should not be -n like this
> > this should not be like thisregression=#
> >
> > I fixed that, but I'm wondering if we should back-patch that fix
> > or leave the back branches alone.
>
> +0.5 for back-patching.
Uh, if this was done in a major release I am thinking we have to mention
this as an incompatibility, which means we should probably not backpatch
it.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
