| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: isolationtester: add session name to application name |
| Date: | 2021-12-13 18:57:52 |
| Message-ID: | 861977.1639421872@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-12-13 19:20:38 | Re: Commitfest 2021-11 Patch Triage - Part 3 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-12-13 18:52:57 | Re: Add client connection check during the execution of the query |