Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 99% of the time, you'd be right. But this is an unusual case, for the
>> reasons I mentioned before.
> I tend to agree with Nikolay. I can't see much upside in making this
> change. At best, nothing will break. At worst, something will break.
> But how do we actually come out ahead?
We come out ahead by not having to make the documentation more confusing.
Basically, we have the opportunity to fix an ancient mistake here at
very low cost. I do not think that doubling down on the mistake is
a better answer.
regards, tom lane