| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Subject: | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |
| Date: | 2022-04-20 02:20:19 |
| Message-ID: | A3D30D77-5F63-4A00-81F0-B7B1A7BFDBB0@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Apr 19, 2022, at 7:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> (A) This is a new feature. Wait for v16.
> (B) This is a bug fix. Commit it now and back-patch to v14.
> (C) This is a cleanup that is OK to put into v15 even after feature
> freeze but since it is a behavior change we shouldn't back-patch it.
>
> I vote for (C). What do other people think?
Looks like most people voted for (B). In support of that option, here are patches for master and REL_14_STABLE. Note that I extended the tests compared to v9, which found a problem that is fixed for v10:
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v14-0001-Reject-patterns-with-too-many-parts-or-wrong-db.patch | application/octet-stream | 106.7 KB |
| v15-0001-Reject-patterns-with-too-many-parts-or-wrong-db.patch | application/octet-stream | 106.3 KB |
| unknown_filename | text/plain | 97 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-04-20 02:46:49 | RE: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-04-20 02:06:21 | Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file |