Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tsAPJ-00G1xQ-2P for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:57:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tsAPH-00AZrX-LB for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:57:11 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tsAPH-00AZpG-BR for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:57:11 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tsAPD-002LJW-27 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:57:11 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 52C0v62r1856324; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:57:06 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: Richard Guo , David Rowley , Ronald Cruz , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, Peter Ford , "Aaron J. Garcia" Subject: Re: Query result differences between PostgreSQL 17 vs 16 In-reply-to: References: <2337383.1740630494@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2748914.1740757698@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3650809.1741015351@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1837979.1741731589@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Tue, 11 Mar 2025 18:58:27 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1856322.1741741026.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:57:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1856323.1741741026@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Bruce Momjian writes: > Well, I was trying to figure out if we should be changing the NULL > handling in 17.X, but now that you have done it with one patch, it seems > the above URL patch should also be applied and backpatched to 17, no? If you want somebody to review that patch, shouldn't it be in the CF? regards, tom lane