| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, 'Peter Eisentraut' <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Missing program_XXX calling in pgbench tests |
| Date: | 2025-06-12 03:23:40 |
| Message-ID: | OSCPR01MB149666A2245E574AFCF543315F574A@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Fujii-san,
> +1 to focusing on the 0001 patch.
>
> Since this isn't a bug fix, I'm not sure back-patching is strictly necessary.
> That said, it does improve consistency and test coverage, e.g., by adding checks
> like help text length, so I'd be fine with back-patching if others see value in it.
Initially I thought this was helpful even for back branches, but it is not
100% needed.
No objections even if it is only applied to master - it can check new features in
future.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergey Sargsyan | 2025-06-12 03:45:57 | Proposal for Improving Concurrent Index Creation Performance |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-06-12 03:14:19 | Re: failover logical replication slots |