Hi, On 2021-12-13 13:57:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2021-12-13 19:46:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> +1 for the idea. Maybe it could be backpatched? > > > Not entirely trivially - the changes have some dependencies on other changes > > (e.g. b1907d688, more on 741d7f104, but that was backpatched). I guess we > > could backpatch b1907d688 as well, but I'm not sure its worth it? > > I think we've more recently had the idea that isolationtester features > should be back-patched to avoid gotchas when back-patching test cases. > For instance, all the isolationtester work I did this past summer was > back-patched. So from that vantage point, back-patching b1907d688 > seems fine.
Since there seems support for that approach, I've backpatched b1907d688 and will push application_name isolationtester change once running the tests across all branches finishes locally. Regards, Andres
