On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 3:34 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > I haven't looked closely at the new PgFFI stuff but +1 on that in > general, and it makes sense to backport that once it lands on master. In > the meanwhile, I think we should backport BackgroundPsql as it is, to > make it possible to backport tests using it right now, even if it is > short-lived.
+1. The fact that PgFFI may be coming isn't a reason to not back-patch this. The risk of back-patching testing infrastructure is also very low as compared with code; in fact, there's a lot of risk from NOT back-patching popular testing infrastructure. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
