Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What is interesting is that the CASE in the OP's original submission
>> is apparently only there to dodge the visible-since-8.0 version of
>> the problem; at least I can't see that it does anything else useful.
>> The complaint apparently is not so much that 8.3 was right, as that
>> the workaround for its bug stopped working ...
> In that light, it probably doesn't make much sense to backport the fix
> further back, given that the people (person?) bitten by the bug surely
> must already be working around it.
Yeah, and there might even be people relying on the incorrect behavior.
I'm not too worried about changing it in 8.4 since that's such a young
release, but it's a bit harder to make a case for that in older
branches.
regards, tom lane
