On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:56:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is anybody concerned about the compatibility implications of fixing this
> bug in the back branches? I'm worried about people complaining that we
> broke their application in a minor release. Maybe they were depending
> on incorrect behavior, but they might complain anyway. On the other
> hand, the fact that this hasn't been reported from the field in nine
> years suggests that not many people write queries like this.
Nice detective work. I'd personally say that it should be fixed. I
personally haven't written these kinds of queries so I'm not affected,
but I don't like the idea of known bugs being unfixed.
It's a pity we can't have a system that can somehow independantly
checks the results of the planner....
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts. -- Arthur Schopenhauer