On 12.09.22 15:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On 09.09.22 22:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think serious consideration should be given to back-patching the
>>> 0001 part (that is, addition of the macros). Otherwise we'll have
>>> to remember not to use these macros in code intended for back-patch,
>>> and that'll be mighty annoying once we are used to them.
>
>> Yes, the 0001 patch is kept separate so that we can do that when we feel
>> the time is right.
>
> I think the right time is now, or at least as soon as you're
> satisfied that the buildfarm is happy.
This has been done.
