Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL?

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL?
Date: 2026-04-08 05:51:03
Message-ID: CA+hUKGK8TB0VisxG7BDBM=aTVkxw1qdag4P7Mv5Sg2e431=T7Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 5:32 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Here's what I came up with for pg_upgrade. It tests each database's
> > encodings with PG_VALID_BE_ENCODING(), and looks like this when it
> > fails:
> > ...
> > I'll wait a bit longer for this one, on the off chance of reviews at
> > this late hour.
>
> Passes a quick eyeball check, anyway.

Thanks! And pushed.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2026-04-08 06:04:45 Re: Logical Replication - revisit `is_table_publication` function implementation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-04-08 05:32:15 Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL?