Gilles Darold writes:
> Le 17/11/2022 à 17:59, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> I didn't want to back-patch e3fcbbd62 at the time, but it's probably aged
>> long enough now to be safe to back-patch. If we do anything here,
>> it should be to back-patch the whole thing, else we've only partially
>> fixed the
Le 17/11/2022 à 17:59, Tom Lane a écrit :
Gilles Darold writes:
I have an incorrect behavior with pg_dump prior PG version 15. With
PostgreSQL 15, thanks to commit e3fcbbd623b9ccc16cdbda374654d91a4727d173
the problem is gone but for older versions it persists with locks on
partitioned tables.
Le 17/11/2022 à 17:59, Tom Lane a écrit :
Gilles Darold writes:
I have an incorrect behavior with pg_dump prior PG version 15. With
PostgreSQL 15, thanks to commit e3fcbbd623b9ccc16cdbda374654d91a4727d173
the problem is gone but for older versions it persists with locks on
partitioned tables.
Gilles Darold writes:
> I have an incorrect behavior with pg_dump prior PG version 15. With
> PostgreSQL 15, thanks to commit e3fcbbd623b9ccc16cdbda374654d91a4727d173
> the problem is gone but for older versions it persists with locks on
> partitioned tables.
I didn't want to back-patch e3fcbb