From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
Date: | 2025-07-10 04:13:20 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tMrCdK0ebnRk-=Ek81udsnSDYXJONWkx8uMWjuai=opA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 9:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > What shall we do for exposed check_hook functions
> > check_max_slot_wal_keep_size() and
> > check_idle_replication_slot_timeout() in backbranch? Shall we remove
> > there as well or leave them to avoid the risk of breaking any
> > application?
>
> It's impossible to believe that any extension is calling those
> functions.
Right..
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-07-10 04:23:47 | Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-10 04:12:32 | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |