On 20/05/18 01:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 20/05/18 00:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm +1 for backpatching it. It may be operating as designed by PeterE
>> ten years ago, but it's not operating as designed by the SQL standard.
>
> By that argument, *anyplace* where we're missing a SQL-spec feature
> is a back-patchable bug. I don't buy it.
Only features we claim to support. I obviously wouldn't consider
backpatching ASSERTIONs, for example.
> It may be that this fix is simple and safe enough that the risk/reward
> tradeoff favors back-patching, but I think you have to argue it as a
> favorable tradeoff rather than just saying "this isn't per standard".
> Consider: if Andrew had completely rewritten gram.y to get the same
> visible effect, would you think that was back-patchable?
Is the decision to backpatch based on behavior, or code churn?
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
