| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress |
| Date: | 2021-04-29 02:41:38 |
| Message-ID: | 2955933.1619664098@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>> I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses
>> pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some
>> suffering/puzzled users/developers, e.g. [1]. Not 100% sure if it
>> makes investing the time into backpatching worth it. However if
>> someone could do it, it would be nice.
> FWIW, I am not really sure that this is important enough to justify a
> back-patch, even it is true that there have been cases in the past
> where extra binaries got added in minor releases.
Yeah, I think adding a binary in a minor release is a Big Deal to
packagers. I doubt that the case here justifies that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-04-29 02:50:36 | Re: [BUG]"FailedAssertion" reported in lazy_scan_heap() when running logical replication |
| Previous Message | tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-04-29 02:34:21 | [BUG]"FailedAssertion" reported in lazy_scan_heap() when running logical replication |