Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fKXFn-0007vb-PR for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 20 May 2018 22:56:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fKXFm-0000A1-BU for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 20 May 2018 22:56:38 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fKXFm-00009r-0x for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 20 May 2018 22:56:38 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([2001:470:e38f::11]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fKXFd-0001NJ-Hz for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 20 May 2018 22:56:35 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B2F3A5F79C; Sun, 20 May 2018 18:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 18:56:28 -0400 From: Stephen Frost To: Peter Geoghegan Cc: Tom Lane , Vik Fearing , Andrew Gierth , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems Message-ID: <20180520225628.GZ27724@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <877enz476l.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk> <22981.1526770675@sss.pgh.pa.us> <03da97fc-9d6b-cbe1-c28f-cee7c1ba5c38@2ndquadrant.com> <25267.1526773270@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="U8k6wZG6LtuRdbOv" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --U8k6wZG6LtuRdbOv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Greetings, * Peter Geoghegan (pg@bowt.ie) wrote: > Whether or not Andrew's patch is formally classified as a bug fix is > subjective. I'm inclined to accept it as a bug fix, but I also think > that it shouldn't matter very much. The practical implication is that > I don't think it's completely out of the question to back-patch, but > AFAICT nobody else thinks it's out of the question anyway. Why bother > debating something that's inconsequential? Just to be clear, based on what I saw on IRC, this specifically came out of someone complaining that it didn't work and caused difficulty for them. As such, my inclination on this would be to back-patch it, but we'd need to be sure to test it and be confident that it won't break things which worked before. Thanks! Stephen --U8k6wZG6LtuRdbOv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJbAf0cAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVgNEP/ibrny2jqNqe7o/e9d8AWZFZ G7YjCJGREViOQh0+iXIYuoOEcYdOruXZRltNzY7XmKKl7THwQkdfTU8n9se9KKTy WxwqYbA0oYmVCQdyb/cYmxsqSBc+FCdLbAj14k1XUs15gVGs9dGeTJIc6rjVhbrv v4wMZVoaUUhuUvwFaudZL2F7pnyTPMi0OrXaYiTdMH0WN/g1t0W1wxhWNxs7SGE4 Lrio4/pc6FxZEe/H5uqKSfEr67b589phepjDIKEgv2ogkSe1rja6rM7fiz/2dG7Z NaPJIN3h67uMRLG2fF4LNIvhCnMet7hFVz5VKwBBbMgmBS62TYYgZNrgf/8BZFK9 tDCMOXqNzx7mc5yA33J02Kzw/864Q8RtZok6voRzby64y97gdVh9CKvgl/GZzBXA 5G1wL5+D4YZcI2Zf858BMi8N51OMgypYs3C6s1GTRgTeFx4BJqlp8kDPff7FKw9d iHcFy+HugF9tqCjsbFGi9A9OpDqx89qzi3pfmDNq1Za8yzPP+S4uHetI3szWo3n0 Dee7WJdziE5MfUQG/FS14HAnDklJ45oROrPphylC27WviwSLSZyVQcpDHPDBox1C 0B/qdHX/owNx1YZn1ZiButEvJWnpR+BwOlCn3bSG3BQjdqLVwb08McXtKCcXit5E g1lzug80dEHlOxMAmUfR =lfDn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --U8k6wZG6LtuRdbOv--