| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The command tag of "ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW RENAME COLUMN" |
| Date: | 2019-11-06 03:56:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFUPtg-YnrWAAXikQ-7HAXr-oDaSLQ=C7Dta4Bika_KHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:19 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm thinking to commit the patch. But I have one question; is it ok to
> > back-patch? Since the patch changes the command tags for some commands,
> > for example, which might break the existing event trigger functions
> > using TG_TAG if we back-patch it. Or we should guarantee the compatibility of
> > command tag within the same major version?
>
> I would not back-patch this. I don't think it's enough of a bug
> to justify taking any compatibility risks for.
+1
I committed the patch only to the master. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-11-06 03:57:10 | Re: [PATCH][DOC] Fix for PREPARE TRANSACTION doc and postgres_fdw message. |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-11-06 03:51:28 | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |