Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 11:06 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> We could just not fix it in the back branches. I'd argue that this is
>>> as much a definition change as a bug fix, so it doesn't really feel
>>> like something to back-patch anyway.
> So, if we don't backpatch then it could lead to an error when it
> shouldn't have which is clearly a bug. I think we should backpatch
> this unless Tom or others are against it.
This isn't a hill that I'm ready to die on ... but do we have any field
complaints about this? If not, I still lean against a back-patch.
I think there's a significant risk of breaking case A while fixing
case B when we change this behavior, and that's something that's
better done only in a major release.
regards, tom lane