On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > Yes, I did think about that, but it seems like a behavior change. >> > However, it is tempting to avoid future bug reports about this. >> >> When this came up in March, Tom and I agreed that this wasn't something >> we wanted to slip into 9.4. Given that, it is hard to argue we should >> now slip this into 9.5, 9.4, and 9.3, so unless someone else votes for >> inclusion, I think I will leave this as 9.5-only. > > With no one replying, I will consider this issue closed and not > backpatch this.
I think the reason nobody's responding is because nobody has anything significant to add. It's a behaviour change from not-working to working. Why wouldn't it be backpatched? -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
