Re: [HACKERS] TAP backpatching policy

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Craig Ringer (craig@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> At the moment that'd be 9.5, since that's where PostgresNode was
>> introduced. But if I can find the time I'd quite like to backport
>> PostgresNode to 9.4 too.

> Makes sense to me.

Um ... but we still have 2 live pre-9.4 branches.  If your proposal
doesn't extend to back-porting all of this stuff as far as 9.2,
I don't see what this is really buying.  We'd still need version cutoff
checks in the tests.

(If you *do* propose back-patching all this stuff as far as 9.2, I'm not
quite sure what I'd think about that.  But the proposal as stated seems
like questionable half measures.)
        regards, tom lane