On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 2:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:00 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> BTW, I forgot to mention: while I think the patch to forbid pseudotypes
> >> by using CheckAttributeType() can be back-patched, I'm leaning towards
> >> not back-patching the other patch. The situation where we get into
> >> infinite recursion seems not very likely in practice, and it's not
> >> going to cause any crash or data loss, so I think we can just say
> >> "sorry that's not supported before v13". The patch as I'm proposing
> >> it seems rather invasive for a back-branch fix.
>
> > It is indeed.
>
> > Just to be sure, by going with "unsupported before v13", which one do you mean:
>
> > * documenting it as so
> > * giving an error in such cases, like the patch in the first email on
> > this thread did
> > * doing nothing really
>
> I was thinking "do nothing in the back branches". I don't believe we
> can detect such cases reliably (at least not without complicated logic,
> which'd defeat the point), so I don't think giving an error is actually
> feasible, and I doubt that documenting it would be useful. If we get
> some field complaints about this, it'd be time enough to reconsider.
Sure, thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Amit
