On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 05:44:52PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 1/25/24 17:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We're talking about 1d35f705e, right? That certainly looks harmless
>> and potentially useful. I'm +1 for back-patching.
>
> That's the one. If we were modifying existing messages I would be against
> it, but new, infrequent (but oh so helpful) messages seem fine.
Well, I'm OK with this consensus on 1d35f705e if folks think this is
useful enough for all the stable branches.
--
Michael
