On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:38:47PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
>> I was referring to:
>>
>> "Materialized views are a type of relation so it is not wrong, just one
>> of many instances where we generalize to "relation" based in implementation
>> details ins team of being explicit about which type of relation is being
>> affected."
>>
>> As being push back.
>>
>> I don't have an opinion on back patching this.
>
> I was arguing against back patching on the basis of defining this as a
> bug. It's not wrong nor severe enough to warrant the side effects others
> have noted.
I am not so sure about v11 as it is very close to release, surely we can
do something for HEAD as that's cosmetic. Anyway, if something is
proposed, could a patch be posted? The only patch I am seeing on this
thread refers to improvements for error messages of procedures.
--
Michael
