If Cloudberry 3.x requires the latest fixes from pg14.20, we only need to
upgrade the latest
REL_16_STABLE code after upgrading the kernel from pg14 to pg16. If
Cloudberry 2.x requires
the latest fixes, then I think it's sufficient to place these fixes in
REL_2_STABLE. Besides
increasing the complexity, what other purpose does merging pg14.20 into the
main branch
and then cherry-picking it into REL_2_STABLE serve?

On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:30 PM Jinbao Chen <[email protected]> wrote:

> The discussion above still seems to suggest that version 14.20 should be
> merged into the main branch, which I completely don't understand.
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 8:03 AM Leonid Borchuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for
>> + absorbing PostgreSQL 14.4 → 14.20 (and future PG14 updates) into the
>> current `main` branch
>> + do not freeze main branch
>>
>> We could decide how to simplify rebasing PG16 work later. Most likely, it
>> will be enough to figure out how to exclude absorbing from PG14 commits.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 3:14 PM Kirill Reshke <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 at 15:47, Dianjin Wang <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I think we need to make a final decision on this; otherwise our work
>> > > will be blocked.
>> > >
>> > > My +1 vote is to absorb PostgreSQL 14.4 → 14.20 (and future PG14
>> > > updates) into the current `main` branch first, and then cherry-pick
>> > > the changes from `main` into `REL_2_STABLE`.
>> >
>> > I guess the only major issue here is how pg14-16 rebase would deal
>> > with that. After 16 pg kernel upgrade work, we should cherry-pick all
>> > commits from main to cbdb-postgres-merge branch. Well, I guess we can
>> > just not do that for 14.4-14.20 commits... Looking for Jinbao Chen
>> > comment here
>> >
>> >
>> > > We should not freeze the PG version that main is based on. If main
>> > > cannot continuously track upstream improvements, we lose one of the
>> > > key advantages of being a PostgreSQL downstream project. In other
>> > > words, `main` should remain the `upstream` for `REL_x_STABLE`, not the
>> > > other way around.
>> >
>> > +1 on that
>> >
>> > > Looking forward to more voices.
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > > Dianjin Wang
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Kirill Reshke
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to