| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| 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>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: Backporting BackgroundPsql |
| Date: | 2024-06-26 11:54:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY4BkgGkO4HsJS0cwOzYM04f3SwXgs8tLo0=VR3yFtZRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2024-06-26 12:10:09 | Re: ON ERROR in json_query and the like |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-06-26 11:35:24 | Re: Buildfarm animal caiman showing a plperl test issue with newer Perl versions |