From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fix pg_publication_tables to exclude generated columns |
Date: | 2023-01-11 04:37:20 |
Message-ID: | 416661.1673411840@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 11:06 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> We could just not fix it in the back branches. I'd argue that this is
>>> as much a definition change as a bug fix, so it doesn't really feel
>>> like something to back-patch anyway.
> So, if we don't backpatch then it could lead to an error when it
> shouldn't have which is clearly a bug. I think we should backpatch
> this unless Tom or others are against it.
This isn't a hill that I'm ready to die on ... but do we have any field
complaints about this? If not, I still lean against a back-patch.
I think there's a significant risk of breaking case A while fixing
case B when we change this behavior, and that's something that's
better done only in a major release.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-11 04:37:51 | Re: Add a new pg_walinspect function to extract FPIs from WAL records |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-11 04:32:04 | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |