On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 11:41 PM Jacob Champion
<jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 1:08 PM David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Presently it’s the same criteria as for the code - things deemed bug fixes get back-patched; pure enhancements do
not.
>
> Well, okay. Bear with me a moment because I need to calibrate to the
> community norms.
>
> Is the consensus that this is not a "bug fix"? Because I know what the
> feature does, but I cannot understand the current paragraph without
> rereading it several times.
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 8:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It depends if there is a wrong explanation then it makes sense to
> > backpatch but as this is a wording improvement, it should be okay to
> > commit it as HEAD-only patch.
>
> I know it's okay, but I *want* to backpatch, and I would have
> yesterday except for your email. Does that raise concerns or cause
> problems in practice?
>
As far as I understand it shouldn't break community norms either way.
Also, as per my knowledge there is no clear guidance for such patches.
It would be good if other committer also shares their view so we can
also learn and take same action in future. This feature is present
since PostgreSQL-13 and no real user has reported this problem. It is
possible that people using this feature are already use to it using
this feature that it doesn't matter much to them either way. Unless
someone else responds, I think you can do what you see good to deal
with this case.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
