On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 01:55:55PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On February 19, 2016 2:42:08 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> I think we should fix it, but not backpatch.
> >>
> >>I don't think that's particularly good policy. It's a clear bug, why
> >>would we not fix it? Leaving it as-is in the back branches can have
> >>no good effect, and what it does do is create a merge hazard for other
> >>back-patchable bug fixes in the same area.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> +1. I think this is clearly a back-patchable fix.
Fix applied to head and 9.5.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription +