Andrew Dunstan <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 12/30/2014 09:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In one light this is certainly a bug fix, but in another it's just >> definitional instability. >> >> If we'd gotten a field bug report we might well have chosen to back-patch, >> though, and perhaps your client's complaint counts as that. > I got caught by this with ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on 9.3 just this afternoon > before remembering this thread. So there's a field report :-) > +0.75 for backpatching (It's hard to imagine someone relying on the bad > behaviour, but you never know). It seems like there's a consensus in favor of back-patching this change, so I'll go ahead and do that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
