From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re-order "disable_on_error" in tab-complete COMPLETE_WITH |
Date: | 2022-07-05 04:04:41 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KA=HJE24gSE-xJ3wmh_Gb9kvM1mQCZbk0Z1DwAMd7u4Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 4:03 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 10:29 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022, at 5:37 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, it seems we have overlooked this point. I think we can do this
> > just for HEAD but as the feature is introduced in PG-15 so there is no
> > harm in pushing it to PG-15 as well especially because it is a
> > straightforward change. What do you or others think?
> >
> > No objection. It is a good thing for future backpatches.
> >
>
> Since there is no function change or bugfix here I thought it was only
> applicable for HEAD. This change is almost in the same category as a
> code comment typo patch - do those normally get backpatched? - maybe
> follow the same convention here. OTOH, if you think it may be helpful
> for future backpatches then I am also fine if you wanted to push it to
> PG15.
>
It can help if there is any bug-fix in the same code path or if some
other code adjustment in the same area is required in the back branch.
I feel the chances of both are less but I just wanted to keep the code
consistent for such a possibility. Anyway, I'll wait for a day or so
and see if anyone has objections to it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-07-05 04:38:04 | Re: AIX support - alignment issues |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-07-05 03:50:15 | Re: CFM Manager |