Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> FWIW, I am not excited about a backpatch, so I would keep this as a
> HEAD-only change. Sure, the existing behavior is incorrect, but it
> would be more annoying to break somebody's script flow after a minor
> release. And that's not critical.
> (If you want to fix that yourself, please feel free. I can do that
> tomorrow by myself but life keeps me busy today and I don't have any
> room to keep an eye on the buildfarm.)
I'm content to wait a day and see if anybody wants to make an
argument for back-patching.
regards, tom lane