29.04.2023 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I suppose that waiting for v17 is preferable if the patch is considered as
>> bringing a new feature (it's not the case) or could require extra time to
>> stabilize. But I'm afraid that anomalies, that would require additional
>> fixes for the change stabilization, could be related to the existing
>> code, and thus that extra time will be invested in improving v16- too.
> I'm a little uncomfortable with changing the semantics of non-failing
> cases in the back branches.
I agree that we shouldn't introduce a new behavior in the released branches.
For that moment I was thinking about the choice between v16 and v17
for that patch to be committed to.
But as you see the better solution now, the patch will be different and more
extensive, I suppose, so I'd vote for postponing it for v17.
Best regards,
Alexander
