| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2025-06-30 08:51:42 |
| Message-ID: | f145c684-1ed4-4281-976e-20d2bdf7c956@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12.06.25 05:23, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
>> +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.
committed
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-30 09:35:46 | Re: doc: explain pgstatindex fragmentation |
| Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2025-06-30 08:47:44 | Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION |