On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 12:58 PM Jacob Champion <jchamp...@timescale.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:39 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > 0002 and 0003 make this stuff fail, but isn't there a risk that this > > breaks applications that relied on these accidental behaviors? > > Assuming that this is OK makes me nervous. > > I wouldn't argue for backpatching, for sure, but I guess I saw this as > falling into the same vein as 5b3c5953 and bcc704b52 which were > already committed.
I agree, I don't think we should try and backport this. As Jacob highlighted, we've merged similar patches for other date time types. If applications were relying on this behavior, the upgrade may be a good time for them to re-evaluate their usage since it's outside the documented spec and they may not be getting the units they're expecting from intervals like '1 day month'. Thanks, Joe Koshakow
