Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions
Date: 2024-04-26 22:16:59
Message-ID: Ziwn2_e3MVdg1-xP@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:39:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, in that case we have to have some kind of control GUC, and
> I think the consensus is that the one we have now is under-designed.
> So I also vote for a full revert and try again in v18.

Okay, fine by me to move on with a revert.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2024-04-26 22:50:54 Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-26 22:14:55 Re: New committers: Melanie Plageman, Richard Guo