From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
 Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg12 release notes
In-reply-to: <20190510135904.GA32055@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20190510135904.GA32055@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Fri, 10 May 2019 09:59:04 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <22339.1557497903.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 10:18:23 -0400
Message-ID: <22340.1557497903@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Still, it's an inconsistency in pg11.  I vote -0 to getting it
> backpatched, mostly because it seems like more work than is warranted.
> (I think the work consists not only of testing that the backpatched
> commit works correctly, but also documenting for 11.4 release notes how
> to fix existing catalogs after upgrading.)

Yeah, I agree.  Even if we back-patched a code change, nothing could
rely on relhassubclass for this purpose in a v11 database, because
of not knowing whether the user actually bothered to manually update
pre-existing indexes' entries.  Better to know that it doesn't work
than to be unsure if it does.

			regards, tom lane