Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> writes: > On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 15:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Is this enough of a bug to deserve back-patching? I'm not sure.
> I like the patch, but I wouldn't back-patch it. I'd call the current
> behavior a slight inconsistency rather than an outright bug, and I think
> that we should be conservative with back-patching.
Nobody spoke in favor of back-patching, so committed to HEAD only.
regards, tom lane
