Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> No, I intentionally didn't back-patch that. The only benefit of the
>> change is throwing a useful error message for questionable syntax.

> then, maybe a fix in the docs of back branches?

What's to fix?  The documentation already makes it quite clear where
you're supposed to put the label.  I think documenting the code's
actual behavior could only confuse people.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of at 2010-03-03 06:07:11 from Jaime Casanova

Responses

• Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of at 2010-03-03 06:37:30 from Jaime Casanova

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Jaime Casanova	Date: 2010-03-03 06:37:30
	Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of
Previous:	From: Jaime Casanova	Date: 2010-03-03 06:07:11
	Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Jaime Casanova	Date: 2010-03-03 06:37:30
	Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of
Previous:	From: Jaime Casanova	Date: 2010-03-03 06:07:11
	Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of