| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: installcheck-world concurrency issues |
| Date: | 2024-09-24 02:24:46 |
| Message-ID: | ZvIi7qaZnSot_Xfi@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 01:52:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> For the archives' sake: this has been applied as of 6a20b04 and
> c3315a7.
Corey (added in CC.), has noticed that the issue fixed by c3315a7 in
16~ for advisory locks is not complicated to reach, leading to
failures in some of our automated internal stuff. A cherry-pick of
c3315a7 works cleanly across 12~15. Would there be any objections if
I were to backpatch this part down to 12?
The problems fixed by 6a20b04 have not really been an issue here,
hence I'd rather let things be as they are for the conflicting role
names.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2024-09-24 03:22:00 | Re: not null constraints, again |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-09-24 02:21:28 | Re: Why don't we consider explicit Incremental Sort? |