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 1k2ans-0004Oe-3k for pgsql-interfaces@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:47:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k2anr-00012B-29 for pgsql-interfaces@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:46:59 +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 1k2anq-000124-So for pgsql-interfaces@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:46:58 +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 1k2ano-0003SF-Qw; Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:46:58 +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 073DksZs2327614; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 09:46:54 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Meskes cc: Ashutosh Sharma , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: ecpg: issue related to preprocessor directives In-reply-to: <9e6e15313816495fc9a5d452458351a1f095d7a6.camel@postgresql.org> References: <1853327.1596240391@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1925404.1596292531@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9e6e15313816495fc9a5d452458351a1f095d7a6.camel@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Meskes message dated "Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:16:48 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2327612.1596462414.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 09:46:54 -0400 Message-ID: <2327613.1596462414@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Michael Meskes writes: >> As stated, I'm not sure it's wise to back-patch this aggressively >> ... but maybe it'd be okay to squeeze it into v13? > Fully agreed, back-patching sounds like a pretty risky approach. I > guess almost everyone who ran into this, fixed their code to work > correctly by now. I'd also prefer squeezing it into 13, let's not keep > this around for longer. Sounds good, done that way. regards, tom lane