Re: incorrect xlog.c coverage report

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: incorrect xlog.c coverage report
Date: 2019-05-30 22:15:15
Message-ID: 20190530221515.GO2848@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:09:08PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Are there objections to doing that now on the master branch?

Adding the flush call just on HEAD is fine for me. Not sure that
there is an actual reason to back-patch that.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kohei KaiGai 2019-05-30 23:14:21 Re: How to know referenced sub-fields of a composite type?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-05-30 22:08:29 Re: cpluspluscheck vs vpath