| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions |
| Date: | 2024-04-26 15:57:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobEd4E5b6rhfmUPP+-uSB2ttqPiDNfexOZfeW_yWEB1qA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 1:05 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> At this stage, my opinion would tend in favor of a revert of the GUC.
> The second class of cases is useful to stress many unexpected cases,
> and I don't expect this number to go down over time, but increase with
> more advanced tests added into core (I/O failures with partial writes
> for availability, etc).
All right. I think there is a consensus in favor of reverting
a740b213d4b4d3360ad0cac696e47e5ec0eb8864. Maybe not an absolutely
iron-clad consensus, but there are a couple of votes explicitly in
favor of that course of action and the other votes seem to mostly be
of the form "well, reverting is ONE option."
Peter?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-26 16:15:27 | Re: Why don't we support external input/output functions for the composite types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-26 15:55:57 | Re: Why don't we support external input/output functions for the composite types |