| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Rework option set of vacuumlo |
| Date: | 2018-08-30 01:32:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20180830013215.GG5903@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
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? As there is nothing
which needs except HEAD that does not seem strictly necessary.
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. Maybe others have more thoughts
to offer and would prefer a back-patch.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-30 03:21:57 | Re: pgsql: Rework option set of vacuumlo |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-08-30 00:13:34 | pgsql: Stop bgworkers during fast shutdown with postmaster in startup p |