From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve effici
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:38:35 -0300
Message-ID: <20190910013835.GA5167@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25247.1568074211@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2019-Sep-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> As for that, now that we realize that this applies to more than
> just NOTICEs, I think we should back-patch the code change in
> 30717637c at least to v11, maybe all the way. I don't see any
> WARNINGs in the isolation expected files before v11, but it
> hardly seems unlikely that we might back-patch some future test
> that expects those to be printed in a consistent way.
>
> The case for back-patching ebd499282 (allow NOTICEs to print)
> is weaker, but it still seems like it might be a hazard for
> back-patching test cases if we don't do so.
>
> On balance I'm inclined to back-patch both changes. Thoughts?
As well as a28e10e82e54, I suppose. I agree with keeping the tool
similar across branches, if we're going to do this.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, thomas.munro@gmail.com
Subject: Re: pgsql: Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve effici
In-Reply-To: <20190910013835.GA5167@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox