On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:54:17AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Hmm, ok, IMO my comment applies to those as well, but it may very well be me
> just reading it wrong. Either way, +1 for pushing your patch.
I am not saying that this cannot be improved either, still I am not
sure how it could be reworded. And if we do that, it should be
applied to all places where we use it. I have fixed the issue and
back-patched down to 9.4. Perhaps that was not worth caring about,
but the versions for the back-branches were not really an issue.
Thanks for the report, Rafael. And thanks for the review, Daniel.
--
Michael