On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:33 PM shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com
<shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 2:40 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 11:06 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > >>> We could just not fix it in the back branches. I'd argue that this is
> > > >>> as much a definition change as a bug fix, so it doesn't really feel
> > > >>> like something to back-patch anyway.
> > >
> > > > So, if we don't backpatch then it could lead to an error when it
> > > > shouldn't have which is clearly a bug. I think we should backpatch
> > > > this unless Tom or others are against it.
> > >
> > > This isn't a hill that I'm ready to die on ... but do we have any field
> > > complaints about this? If not, I still lean against a back-patch.
> > > I think there's a significant risk of breaking case A while fixing
> > > case B when we change this behavior, and that's something that's
> > > better done only in a major release.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough, but note that there is a somewhat related problem for
> > dropped columns [1] as well. While reviewing that it occurred to me
> > that generated columns also have a similar problem which leads to this
> > thread (it would have been better if there is a mention of the same in
> > the initial email). Now, as symptoms are similar, I think we shouldn't
> > back-patch that as well, otherwise, it will appear to be partially
> > fixed. What do you think?
> >
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-
> > id/OSZPR01MB631087C65BA81E1FEE5A60D2FDF59%40OSZPR01MB6310.jpnpr
> > d01.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> I agree to only fix them on HEAD.
>
> I merged this patch and the one in [1] as they are similar problems. Please
> see the attached patch.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
