On 11/13/24 18:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:07 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote:
>> My plan was to apply the patch to both 17 and HEAD, and then maybe do
>> something smarter in HEAD in a separate commit. But then Michael pointed
>> out other pageinspect functions just error out in this version-mismatch
>> cases, so I think it's better to just do it the same way.
>
> FWIW I didn't actually backpatch commit 691e8b2e18. I decided that it
> was better to just paper-over the issue on backbranches instead -- see
> commit c788115b.
>
> The problem that I fixed back in 2020 was a problem with the data
> types used -- not a failure to consider older versions of the
> extension at all. It was just convenient to use the number of columns
> to detect the version of the extension to detect a problematic
> (incorrectly typed) function.
>
Does that mean you think we should fix the issue at hand differently?
Say, by looking at number of columns and building the correct tuple,
like I did in my initial patch?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
