Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 11:06 PM Tom Lane <t...@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. regards, tom lane