From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES
In-reply-to: <20200519062029.GE11835@paquier.xyz>
References: <20200518170323.GA14610@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20200518233032.GA32205@alvherre.pgsql> <20200519023634.GA11835@paquier.xyz>
 <3850.1589863299@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20200519062029.GE11835@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Tue, 19 May 2020 15:20:29 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <26189.1589894392.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 09:19:52 -0400
Message-ID: <26190.1589894392@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:41:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>>> This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped.  So it
>>> means that it won't be included in it, right?

>> Right.

> Still, wouldn't it be better to wait until the version is tagged?

Yeah, that would have been better per project protocol: if a tarball
re-wrap becomes necessary then it would be messy not to include this
change along with fixing whatever urgent bug there might be.

However, I thought the case for delaying this fix till post-wrap was kind
of thin anyway, so if that does happen I won't be too fussed about it.
Otherwise I would've said something earlier on this thread.

			regards, tom lane