On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
>>> backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this behavior change [1].
>
>> I could go either way on that. It's not inconceivable somebody could
>> be unhappy about seeing this behavior change in a minor release.
>
> FWIW, I vote with the camp that this is a clear bug and needs to be
> fixed. 9.6 broke a behavior that could be relied on before that.
> We do not normally hesitate to fix regressions in minor releases.
>
> (That's not a vote for the patch as submitted; I haven't reviewed it.
> But we need to fix this.)
OK. I'm going to commit and back-patch the substantive fix with a
comment change, but I'm not going to include Amit's documentation
changes for now because I'm not sure they are going to be sufficiently
clear. There's not a lot of context for them where he put them.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
