Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-12-13 19:46:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> +1 for the idea. Maybe it could be backpatched?
> Not entirely trivially - the changes have some dependencies on other changes
> (e.g. b1907d688, more on 741d7f104, but that was backpatched). I guess we
> could backpatch b1907d688 as well, but I'm not sure its worth it?
I think we've more recently had the idea that isolationtester features
should be back-patched to avoid gotchas when back-patching test cases.
For instance, all the isolationtester work I did this past summer was
back-patched. So from that vantage point, back-patching b1907d688
seems fine.
regards, tom lane
