Hi,
On 2025-02-17 08:52:58 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.
git {show|log|...} --abbrev-commit
> >> 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.
Cool, will after the minor release freeze.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
