Hi, On Mon, Nov 02, 2026 at 08:42:03AM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote: > > > Anyway, what do you think about the attached to address this hole in > > > the tests? > > > > LGTM and I don't see a strong case for backpatching. > > The test looks good to me as well. I don't think it should be backpatched. > > v5-0001 now includes the previously lost test. > v5-0002 is the same as v4, but without including the v5-0001 test and > using PGSTAT_KIND_INVALID instead of a new PGSTAT_KIND_ALL. >
Thanks for the update! v5 LGTM. Just one nit: I wonder if test_custom_stats_var_match_entry() and test_custom_stats_var_match_kind() could get more descriptive comments above their definitions. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
