From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        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
In-reply-to: <20190910113725.54d4z3arjgwdf6j6@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20190910013835.GA5167@alvherre.pgsql>
 <30239.1568081602@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190910113725.54d4z3arjgwdf6j6@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Tue, 10 Sep 2019 04:37:25 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <22457.1568129986.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:39:46 -0400
Message-ID: <22458.1568129986@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-09-09 22:13:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> As well as a28e10e82e54, I suppose.  I agree with keeping the tool
>>> similar across branches, if we're going to do this.

>> Hm, good point.  My first thought was that a28e10e82e54 is just
>> cosmetic, but it isn't entirely, because it suppresses notice
>> reports on the control connection.  That means it might actually
>> be a prerequisite to having stable output with ebd499282 (the
>> change of client_min_messages).
>> 
>> After reviewing the git log a little more, I'm inclined to think
>> we should only back-patch this stuff to 9.6, which is where 38f8bdcac
>> ("Modify the isolation tester so that multiple sessions can wait")
>> and a number of follow-up patches came in.  That was enough of a
>> quantum jump in flexibility that it'd likely limit our ability to
>> back-patch tests further than that anyway.  Also I don't think the
>> patches mentioned here would apply without that ...

> That seems like a good plan to me.

Hearing no votes against, I'll go make it so.

			regards, tom lane