From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: isolationtester: add session name to application name
In-reply-to: <20211213184834.acltkdc2h4yj5npc@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20211211012052.2blmzcmxnxqawd2z@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <YbckiqW5wMykJ6nZ@paquier.xyz>
 <20211213184834.acltkdc2h4yj5npc@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:48:34 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <861976.1639421872.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:57:52 -0500
Message-ID: <861977.1639421872@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/861977.1639421872%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-12-13 19:46:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> +1 for the idea.  Maybe it could be backpatched?

> Not entirely trivially - the changes have some dependencies on other changes
> (e.g. b1907d688, more on 741d7f104, but that was backpatched). I guess we
> could backpatch b1907d688 as well, but I'm not sure its worth it?

I think we've more recently had the idea that isolationtester features
should be back-patched to avoid gotchas when back-patching test cases.
For instance, all the isolationtester work I did this past summer was
back-patched.  So from that vantage point, back-patching b1907d688
seems fine.

			regards, tom lane