"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> The risk here is significantly reduced since the existing user-visible
> behavior is an error which presumably no one is relying upon. Between that
> and being able to conform to the standard syntax for a long-standing
> feature I would say the benefit outweighs the cost and risk.
The risk you're ignoring is that this patch will break something that
*did* work before. Given that the first version did exactly that,
I do not think that risk should be considered negligible. I'm going
to change my vote for back-patching from -0.5 to -1.
regards, tom lane