On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 6:28 PM Nisha Moond <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 1:00 PM Jim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Nisha > > > > On 20/05/2026 09:09, Nisha Moond wrote: > > > For the describePublications (\dRp+) case, should we add an (sversion > > >> = 150000) guard around the new change, since it accesses > > > pg_publication_namespace, which is only available in PG15 and above? > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > I considered that in my first review, but since PG14 will be EOL'd by > > the time PG20 is shipped, I thought it wouldn't be necessary. > > > > Okay, that makes sense. >
The new tests in patch v5 look good to me. I think Nisha was correct about adding a PG15 version check. It was an accidental omission in my first patch. Even if PG14 is EOL-ed by the time this change is released, it is trivial to keep the psql \dRp+ command behaving as-is rather than crashing due to an internal SQL error. So, I prefer to err on the side of caution and add the version check for now; a committer can remove it if they deem it unnecessary. Added Nisha as a reviewer in the commit message. PSA v6. ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
v6-0001-Fix-psql-duplicate-items-for-dRp-and-d.patch
Description: Binary data
