From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Rework option set of vacuumlo
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 23:21:57 -0400
Message-ID: <8169.1535599317@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180830013215.GG5903@paquier.xyz>
References: <E1fudM8-0000af-Lm@gemulon.postgresql.org>
<12438.1535488750@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<17758.1535490505@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20180828213701.GL29157@paquier.xyz>
<7228.1535492867@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20180830013215.GG5903@paquier.xyz>
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:47:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I didn't want to backpatch further than v11 without a test case that would
>> work in those branches, and I lacked one. If you've got out-of-core code
>> you could verify it with, please do that and back-patch further.
> Was there any need to patch v11 with that actually?
I figured that patching v11 was safe without further testing, because
HEAD has hardly diverged from that. Previous branches probably should
get tested in some fashion before back-patching, and I didn't have a
good test case, so I didn't. But I suspect that a back-patch would
be worthwhile because (a) external modules would like to rely on such
infrastructure and/or (b) we might like to back-patch test cases for
contrib modules. However ...
> I have reviewed the modules I have, and actually it seems that I would
> not need much of that for a back-patch. One reason being that most of
> my TAP tests need pg_regress so as nodes can be initialized so this
> needs an external installation anyway.
... if there's other missing pieces then neither (a) nor (b) is very
compelling.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, michael@paquier.xyz, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Rework option set of vacuumlo
In-Reply-To: <8169.1535599317@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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