| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mikael Kjellström <mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backporting BackgroundPsql |
| Date: | 2024-06-27 16:35:05 |
| Message-ID: | 5d09717a-e933-42c7-b8f2-ebce5edb4385@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26/06/2024 14:54, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 3:34 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> I haven't looked closely at the new PgFFI stuff but +1 on that in
>> general, and it makes sense to backport that once it lands on master. In
>> the meanwhile, I think we should backport BackgroundPsql as it is, to
>> make it possible to backport tests using it right now, even if it is
>> short-lived.
>
> +1. The fact that PgFFI may be coming isn't a reason to not back-patch
> this. The risk of back-patching testing infrastructure is also very
> low as compared with code; in fact, there's a lot of risk from NOT
> back-patching popular testing infrastructure.
Ok, I pushed commits to backport BackgroundPsql down to v12. I used
"option 2", i.e. I changed background_psql() to return the new
BackgroundPsql object.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-27 16:59:37 | Re: JIT causes core dump during error recovery |
| Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2024-06-27 16:31:11 | Re: JIT causes core dump during error recovery |