Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On mån, 2012-05-14 at 15:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (In any case, my primary beef at the moment is not with whether it's a
>> good idea to change age()'s behavior going forward, but rather with
>> having back-patched such a change.)
> Certainly we should leave it alone there.
With back-branch update releases due to be made this week, we need to
decide what if anything we're going to do about changing this.
I have no particular complaint with what Simon's done in HEAD, but
back-patching it was not wise IMO. I think we should just revert the
patches in the back branches and go back to the way it was before
(complete with failures on slave servers).
regards, tom lane