Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 03:45:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >>> But that's not an issue intruduced by PG12, it works like that even for > >>> the extended statistics introduced in PG10. > > >> Yeah, but no time like the present to fix it if it's wrong ... > > > Sorry, not sure I understand. Are you saying we should try to rework > > this before the beta1 release, or that we don't have time to do that? > > > I think we have four options - rework it before beta1, rework it after > > beta1, rework it in PG13 and leave it as it is now. > > Yup, that's about what the options are. I'm just voting against > "change it in v13". If we're going to change it, then the fewer > major versions that have the bogus definition the better --- and > since we're changing that catalog in v12 anyway, users will see > fewer distinct behaviors if we do this change too. > > It's very possibly too late to get it done before beta1, > unfortunately. But as Andres noted, post-beta1 catversion > bumps are hardly unusual, so I do not think "rework after > beta1" is unacceptable.
Agreed. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
