Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nUybS-0002lM-Fd for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:28:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nUybR-0001kc-6f for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:28:17 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nUybQ-0001kT-U8 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:28:16 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nUybO-0005nJ-QA for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:28:16 +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 22HMSBOq973181; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:28:11 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Aleksander Alekseev cc: PostgreSQL Hackers , Robert Haas Subject: Re: ExecTypeSetColNames is fundamentally broken In-reply-to: References: <2950001.1638729947@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3360468.1638824732@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3501514.1638898248@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3504581.1638901169@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Aleksander Alekseev message dated "Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:47:15 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <973179.1647556091.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:28:11 -0400 Message-ID: <973180.1647556091@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Aleksander Alekseev writes: > I understand the concern expressed by Robert in respect of backward > compatibility. From the user's perspective, personally I would prefer > a fixed bug over backward compatibility. Especially if we consider the > fact that the current behaviour of cases like `select row_to_json(i) > from int8_tbl i(x,y)` is not necessarily the correct one, at least it > doesn't look right to me. It's debatable anyway. I'd be less worried about changing this behavior if we didn't have to back-patch it ... but I see no good alternative. > So unless anyone has strong objections against the proposed fix or can > propose a better patch, I would suggest merging it. Done now. regards, tom lane