Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:48:17 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>,
	Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Message-ID: <202508151248.bgqpyi2sbyxw@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <76312.1755261129@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202508151248.bgqpyi2sbyxw%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Aug-15, Antonin Houska wrote:

> This is v18 again.

Thanks for this!

> Parts 0001 through 0004 are unchanged, however 0005 is added. It
> implements a new client application pg_repackdb. (If I posted 0005
> alone its regression tests would not work. I wonder if the cfbot
> handles the repeated occurence of the 'v18-' prefix correctly.)

Yeah, the cfbot is just going to take the attachments from the latest
email in the thread that has any, and assume they are the whole that
make up the patch.  It wouldn't work to post just v18-0005 and assume
that the bot is going grab patches 0001 through 0004 from a previous
email, if that's what you're thinking.  In short, what you did is
correct and necessary.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/