> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:38:47PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
>>> I was referring to:
>>>
>>> "Materialized views are a type of relation so it is not wrong, just one
>>> of many instances where we generalize to "relation" based in implementation
>>> details ins team of being explicit about which type of relation is being
>>> affected."
>>>
>>> As being push back.
>>>
>>> I don't have an opinion on back patching this.
>>
>> I was arguing against back patching on the basis of defining this as a
>> bug. It's not wrong nor severe enough to warrant the side effects others
>> have noted.
>
> I am not so sure about v11 as it is very close to release, surely we can
> do something for HEAD as that's cosmetic. Anyway, if something is
> proposed, could a patch be posted? The only patch I am seeing on this
> thread refers to improvements for error messages of procedures.
Oops, too much multitasking. I will attach the correct patch when I get home.
Jonathan
