On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 04:13:37PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2025-02-14 09:52:24 -0800, Jacob Champion wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 8:53 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> commit 70291a3c66e
(Side question entirely unrelated as I'm reading that..) What's your magic recipe for showing up with commit format? The best thing I could come up with was to use "(14,trunc)%H" in format.pretty, but it has the idea of showing two dots at the end of the commit ID. >>> Author: Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> >>> Date: 2024-11-07 12:11:27 +0900 >>> >>> Improve handling of empty query results in BackgroundPsql::query() >>> >>> commit ba08edb0654 >>> Author: Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> >>> Date: 2024-11-06 15:31:14 +0900 >>> >>> Extend Cluster.pm's background_psql() to be able to start asynchronously >> >> I think both should be backpatchable without too much risk > > I think so too. Obviously it'll have to wait until later next week due to the > new minor releases, but after that I think we should backpatch them. No issues with ba08edb0654. >> If we're concerned about the second for any reason, the only conflicting >> part should be the name and documentation of wait_connect, right? > > It doesn't seem concerning to me either. The first commit seems much more > likely to cause trouble and even that seems ok. Even if it were to cause > problem for an extension (which I think is rather unlikely), it shouldn't be > too hard to fix. FWIW, Debian Search reports that the only references to BackgroundPsql are in the Postgres tree, so backpatching 70291a3c66e does not worry me. Github has more much references due to forked code or direct copies of BackgroundPsql.pn modified for the purpose of the code. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
