Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:38:35 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	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
Message-ID: <20190910013835.GA5167@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <25247.1568074211@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

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