On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 16:52, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure we should proceed with rewriting most/all eligible foreach > loops. I think it's fine to use the new macros in new code or to update > existing loops in passing when changing nearby code, but rewriting > everything likely just introduces back-patching pain in return for little > discernible gain.
To clarify: I totally agree that if we're not backpatching this we shouldn't do bulk changes on existing loops to avoid pain when backpatching other patches. > Unless there's some way to argue this is a bug, security issue, or data > corruption problem [0], I seriously doubt we will back-patch this. In the past some tooling changes have been backpatched, e.g. isolationtester has received various updates over the years (I know because this broke Citus its isolationtester tests a few times because the output files changed slightly). In some sense this patch could be considered tooling too. Again: not saying we should back-patch this, but we could only realistically bulk update loops if we do.
