On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 02:10:10PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> My point here is that if doing so, we would have 3 versions in PG10,
> PG11, and HEAD, which would make back-patching complicated. So my
> taste would be to fix this on HEAD the same way as PG11, but I'm not
> against using RELKIND_CAN_HAVE_STORAGE on HEAD.
The conflicts would be a bit annoying yes, still those are minimal so
I would still use the macro on HEAD. Let's see if others have an
opinion. We will have a divergence between v10 and v11 anyway as v11
has added support for COPY with foreign tables, and v10 has added
support for COPY with views.
--
Michael