On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 4:02 PM Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Now, we also need to decide whether to backpatch the relevant change > > to back-branches. It seems we didn't get the bug-report yet but > > clearly what we do currently is not correct. So, we should ideally > > backpatch it and in the back branches we don't need to expose it. > > OTOH, as it is reported and is not a big issue, so we can keep this as > > a HEAD only change as well. If we want to keep this as a HEAD only > > change then shall we wait for PG20 branch to open or go for current > > HEAD itself? What do you and or others think on this matter? > > I think we should apply in PG19. Although back-patching isn't > critical, since we already have an opportunity to fix it in PG19, why > not push it early? >
I also think we should push it for PG19 especially because the EXCEPT feature increased the usage of relation names without schema-name in error messages. However, as we are past feature freeze, I wanted to know the opinion of others as well. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
