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.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
