Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Actually, I think this is a bug and the right thing is to make the code
>> match the documentation not vice versa.
> I assume that this should be a 9.3 code fix, and a doc fix prior to
> that, since it would require changing catalogs and might break
> existing user queries?� Should the docs mention the value used in
> each version, or be changed to just be silent on the issue?
I think the odds that any user queries are looking at that column are
pretty negligible, especially since nobody has complained about the
inaccurate documentation previously. I agree with only changing the
behavior in HEAD, just in case, but I don't see any strong reason to
jump through hoops here.
> Such a change would require a catversion bump.
Not really. There appears to be one place in ruleutils.c that would
need to be tweaked to allow either -1 or 0 (the other place already
does, so the code is inconsistent now anyhow).
> Such a change would require mention in the release notes because
> existing user queries against pg_rewrite might fail unless
> adjusted.
I would not bother with that either; seems like a waste of readers'
attention span.
> Is it worth doing that now, versus when and if the hypothetical
> change to reference a column is made?
Well, the longer we leave it as-is, the greater risk that somebody
might write code that really does depend on the bogus value.
regards, tom lane