On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 09:34:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I do have a strong opinion that just before a
> release freeze is not the time to be pushing such changes into stable
> branches.
Don't worry. I have no plans to do any of that before the next minor
release. Sorry if that was not clear.
Michael Paquier writes:
> It is v18 and HEAD are on par in terms of features, with only
> 4eca711bc991 and 7b2eb72b1b8c requiring a cherry-pick, so perhaps we
> should begin with that, before moving with more cherry-picks down to
> v17 as the second step?
> Any thoughts from others? Would it be
On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 12:53:12PM +0300, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> FWIW both multixact problem [0] and my recent corruption finding [1]
> would benefit a lot from having ability to do injection points down
> to PG 12.
> And while [0] is a bug that is detectable with several pgbenches, I
> have a goo
> On 28 Jun 2025, at 05:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:45:58PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> I'm +1 on having full-fledged injection points in back branches
>> where possible. Right now I'm debugging a PG-17(probably) problem
>> where injection preloading would be
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:45:58PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> I'm +1 on having full-fledged injection points in back branches
> where possible. Right now I'm debugging a PG-17(probably) problem
> where injection preloading would be handy (though functionality is
> available via hacks, just a li
> On 27 Jun 2025, at 14:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Thoughts or comments?
I'm +1 on having full-fledged injection points in back branches where possible.
Right now I'm debugging a PG-17(probably) problem where injection preloading
would be handy (though functionality is available via hac
