From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg17 issues with not-null contraints |
Date: | 2024-04-30 18:52:58 |
Message-ID: | ZjE-CqULOywtc2dd@pryzbyj2023 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:52:02PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:52 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm not totally clear on what's intended in v17 - maybe it'd be dead
> > code, and maybe it shouldn't even be applied to master branch. But I do
> > think it's worth patching earlier versions (even though it'll be less
> > useful than having done so 5 years ago).
>
> This thread is still on the open items list, but I'm not sure whether
> there's still stuff here that needs to be fixed for the current
> release. If not, this thread should be moved to the "resolved before
> 17beta1" section. If so, we should try to reach consensus on what the
> remaining issues are and what we're going to do about them.
I think the only thing that's relevant for v17 is this:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:11:49PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Speaking of which, I wonder if I should modify pg16's tests so that they
> leave behind tables set up in this way, to immortalize pg_upgrade testing.
The patch on the other thread for pg_upgrade --check is an old issue
affecting all stable releases.
--
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cary Huang | 2024-04-30 19:10:12 | Re: Support tid range scan in parallel? |
Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2024-04-30 17:57:28 | Control flow in logical replication walsender |