Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > Questions: > - I'm planning to backpatch the test as 031_recovery_conflict.pl, even though > preceding numbers are unused. It seems way more problematic to use a > different number in the backbranches than have gaps?
+1 > - The test uses pump_until() and wait_for_log(), which don't exist in the > backbranches. For now I've just inlined the implementation, but I guess we > could also backpatch their introduction? I'd backpatch --- seems unlikely this will be the last need for 'em. > pgindent uses some crazy formatting nearby: > SendRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin( > > PROCSIG_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_STARTUP_DEADLOCK); I do not believe that that line break is pgindent's fault. If you just fold it into one line it should stay that way. regards, tom lane