From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Rework option set of vacuumlo
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:32:15 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8168.1535599317.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 23:21:57 -0400
Message-ID: <8169.1535599317@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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