Re: Calculage avg. width when operator = is missing

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > In any case I think your patch is a good starting point.
>
> The comments seemed to need some wordsmithing, but I think this is
> probably basically a good idea; we've had similar complaints before
> about some other equality-less datatypes, such as point.
>
> Should we consider this HEAD-only, or a back-patchable bug fix?
> Or perhaps compromise on HEAD + 9.5?
>

I failed to realize that the complaint I've referred to regarding all too
wide samples was addressed back then by this
commit: 6286526207d53e5b31968103adb89b4c9cd21499

For what it's worth, that time the decision was "This has been like this
since roughly neolithic times, so back-patch to all supported branches."
Does the same logic not apply here?

--
Alex