| From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test |
| Date: | 2023-06-11 03:12:04 |
| Message-ID: | CALDaNm1kR=xNS=Aihq7fPYch3oXyzgFmjmjSwcCzBmCsqME33Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 08:31, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 06:43:44PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > Please find the attached patches that can be applied on back branches
> > too. v5*master.patch can be applied on master, v5*PG15.patch can be
> > applied on PG15, v5*PG14.patch can be applied on PG14, v5*PG13.patch
> > can be applied on PG13, v5*PG12.patch can be applied on PG12, PG11 and
> > PG10.
>
> Thanks. The amount of minimal conflicts across all these branches is
> always fun to play with. I have finally got around and applied all
> that, after doing a proper split, applying one part down to 14 and the
> second back to 11.
Thanks for pushing this.
Regards,
Vignesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2023-06-11 10:26:39 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-06-11 01:47:55 | Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test |