On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > In any case I think your patch is a good starting point.
The comments seemed to need some wordsmithing, but I think this is probably basically a good idea; we've had similar complaints before about some other equality-less datatypes, such as point.
Should we consider this HEAD-only, or a back-patchable bug fix? Or perhaps compromise on HEAD + 9.5?
I failed to realize that the complaint I've referred to regarding all too wide samples was addressed back then by this commit: 6286526207d53e5b31968103adb89b4c9cd21499
For what it's worth, that time the decision was "This has been like this since roughly neolithic times, so back-patch to all supported branches." Does the same logic not apply here?