| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve effici |
| Date: | 2019-09-10 01:38:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20190910013835.GA5167@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 2019-Sep-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> As for that, now that we realize that this applies to more than
> just NOTICEs, I think we should back-patch the code change in
> 30717637c at least to v11, maybe all the way. I don't see any
> WARNINGs in the isolation expected files before v11, but it
> hardly seems unlikely that we might back-patch some future test
> that expects those to be printed in a consistent way.
>
> The case for back-patching ebd499282 (allow NOTICEs to print)
> is weaker, but it still seems like it might be a hazard for
> back-patching test cases if we don't do so.
>
> On balance I'm inclined to back-patch both changes. Thoughts?
As well as a28e10e82e54, I suppose. I agree with keeping the tool
similar across branches, if we're going to do this.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-10 02:13:22 | Re: pgsql: Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve effici |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-10 00:10:11 | Re: pgsql: Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve effici |