Re: Backporting BackgroundPsql

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 3:34 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> I haven't looked closely at the new PgFFI stuff but +1 on that in
> general, and it makes sense to backport that once it lands on master. In
> the meanwhile, I think we should backport BackgroundPsql as it is, to
> make it possible to backport tests using it right now, even if it is
> short-lived.

+1. The fact that PgFFI may be coming isn't a reason to not back-patch
this. The risk of back-patching testing infrastructure is also very
low as compared with code; in fact, there's a lot of risk from NOT
back-patching popular testing infrastructure.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com