On 13.07.22 20:24, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
What platforms did this fail on? How can one observe the failure locally?
wrasse at least:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=wrasse&dt=2022-07-13%2014%3A49%3A17
I think possibly you could duplicate the proble
Create a distinct wait event for POSIX DSM allocation.
Previously we displayed "DSMFillZeroWrite" while in posix_fallocate(),
because we shared the same wait event for "mmap" and "posix" DSM types.
Let's introduce a new wait event "DSMAllocate", to be more accurate.
Reported-by: Andres Freund
Di
Remove redundant ftruncate() for POSIX DSM memory.
In early releases of the DSM infrastructure, it was possible to resize
segments. That was removed in release 12 by commit 3c60d0fa. Now the
ftruncate() + posix_fallocate() sequence during DSM segment creation has
a redundant step: we're always e
Block signals while allocating DSM memory.
On Linux, we call posix_fallocate() on shm_open()'d memory to avoid
later potential SIGBUS (see commit 899bd785).
Based on field reports of systems stuck in an EINTR retry loop there,
there, we made it possible to break out of that loop via slightly odd
Block signals while allocating DSM memory.
On Linux, we call posix_fallocate() on shm_open()'d memory to avoid
later potential SIGBUS (see commit 899bd785).
Based on field reports of systems stuck in an EINTR retry loop there,
there, we made it possible to break out of that loop via slightly odd
Block signals while allocating DSM memory.
On Linux, we call posix_fallocate() on shm_open()'d memory to avoid
later potential SIGBUS (see commit 899bd785).
Based on field reports of systems stuck in an EINTR retry loop there,
there, we made it possible to break out of that loop via slightly odd
Block signals while allocating DSM memory.
On Linux, we call posix_fallocate() on shm_open()'d memory to avoid
later potential SIGBUS (see commit 899bd785).
Based on field reports of systems stuck in an EINTR retry loop there,
there, we made it possible to break out of that loop via slightly odd
Block signals while allocating DSM memory.
On Linux, we call posix_fallocate() on shm_open()'d memory to avoid
later potential SIGBUS (see commit 899bd785).
Based on field reports of systems stuck in an EINTR retry loop there,
there, we made it possible to break out of that loop via slightly odd
Block signals while allocating DSM memory.
On Linux, we call posix_fallocate() on shm_open()'d memory to avoid
later potential SIGBUS (see commit 899bd785).
Based on field reports of systems stuck in an EINTR retry loop there,
there, we made it possible to break out of that loop via slightly odd
Block signals while allocating DSM memory.
On Linux, we call posix_fallocate() on shm_open()'d memory to avoid
later potential SIGBUS (see commit 899bd785).
Based on field reports of systems stuck in an EINTR retry loop there,
there, we made it possible to break out of that loop via slightly odd
Avoid shadowing a variable in sync.c.
It was confusing to reuse the variable name 'entry' in two scopes.
Use distinct variable names.
Reported-by: Ranier Vilela
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Reported-by: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEudQArDrFyQ15Am3rgWBunGBVZFDb90onTS8SRiFAWHei
Tighten up parsing logic in gen_node_support.pl.
Teach this script to handle function pointer fields honestly.
Previously they were just silently ignored, but that's not likely to
be a behavior we can accept indefinitely. This mostly entails fixing
it so that a field declaration spanning multiple
Don't clobber postmaster sigmask in dsm_impl_resize.
Commit 4518c798 intended to block signals in regular backends that
allocate DSM segments, but dsm_impl_resize() is also reached by
dsm_postmaster_startup(). It's not OK to clobber the postmaster's
signal mask, so only manipulate the signal mask
Don't clobber postmaster sigmask in dsm_impl_resize.
Commit 4518c798 intended to block signals in regular backends that
allocate DSM segments, but dsm_impl_resize() is also reached by
dsm_postmaster_startup(). It's not OK to clobber the postmaster's
signal mask, so only manipulate the signal mask
Don't clobber postmaster sigmask in dsm_impl_resize.
Commit 4518c798 intended to block signals in regular backends that
allocate DSM segments, but dsm_impl_resize() is also reached by
dsm_postmaster_startup(). It's not OK to clobber the postmaster's
signal mask, so only manipulate the signal mask
Don't clobber postmaster sigmask in dsm_impl_resize.
Commit 4518c798 intended to block signals in regular backends that
allocate DSM segments, but dsm_impl_resize() is also reached by
dsm_postmaster_startup(). It's not OK to clobber the postmaster's
signal mask, so only manipulate the signal mask
Don't clobber postmaster sigmask in dsm_impl_resize.
Commit 4518c798 intended to block signals in regular backends that
allocate DSM segments, but dsm_impl_resize() is also reached by
dsm_postmaster_startup(). It's not OK to clobber the postmaster's
signal mask, so only manipulate the signal mask
Don't clobber postmaster sigmask in dsm_impl_resize.
Commit 4518c798 intended to block signals in regular backends that
allocate DSM segments, but dsm_impl_resize() is also reached by
dsm_postmaster_startup(). It's not OK to clobber the postmaster's
signal mask, so only manipulate the signal mask
Don't clobber postmaster sigmask in dsm_impl_resize.
Commit 4518c798 intended to block signals in regular backends that
allocate DSM segments, but dsm_impl_resize() is also reached by
dsm_postmaster_startup(). It's not OK to clobber the postmaster's
signal mask, so only manipulate the signal mask
On 14.07.22 12:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 13.07.22 20:24, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
What platforms did this fail on? How can one observe the failure
locally?
wrasse at least:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=wrasse&dt=2022-07-13%2014%3A49%3A17
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> It seems that -fkeep-inline-functions is more demanding than what wrasse
> is running on. I need the attached patch to get it to build cleanly.
Interesting. I'm not entirely clear on which external references
cause wrasse to spit up.
> I think this would be good to
doc: mention the pg_locks lock names in parentheses
Reported-by: Troy Frericks
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_10_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/88580b63ebe45
doc: mention the pg_locks lock names in parentheses
Reported-by: Troy Frericks
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/3e071b2cf584052b0799
doc: mention the pg_locks lock names in parentheses
Reported-by: Troy Frericks
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_13_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/3336b3de34e1b
doc: mention the pg_locks lock names in parentheses
Reported-by: Troy Frericks
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/8db5026d0a085
doc: mention the pg_locks lock names in parentheses
Reported-by: Troy Frericks
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_11_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/9d352c4448e98
doc: mention the pg_locks lock names in parentheses
Reported-by: Troy Frericks
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_12_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/64695a3ce646a
doc: mention the pg_locks lock names in parentheses
Reported-by: Troy Frericks
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_14_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/6396ab3d14278
doc: mention that INSERT can block because of unique indexes
Initial patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwzpbdzceo41ve-xt1xh8rwrrfgoptak1wl9ehco0am...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
--
doc: mention that INSERT can block because of unique indexes
Initial patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwzpbdzceo41ve-xt1xh8rwrrfgoptak1wl9ehco0am...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https
doc: mention that INSERT can block because of unique indexes
Initial patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwzpbdzceo41ve-xt1xh8rwrrfgoptak1wl9ehco0am...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_11_STABLE
Details
--
doc: mention that INSERT can block because of unique indexes
Initial patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwzpbdzceo41ve-xt1xh8rwrrfgoptak1wl9ehco0am...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_14_STABLE
Details
--
doc: mention that INSERT can block because of unique indexes
Initial patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwzpbdzceo41ve-xt1xh8rwrrfgoptak1wl9ehco0am...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_12_STABLE
Details
--
doc: mention that INSERT can block because of unique indexes
Initial patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwzpbdzceo41ve-xt1xh8rwrrfgoptak1wl9ehco0am...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_13_STABLE
Details
--
doc: mention that INSERT can block because of unique indexes
Initial patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwzpbdzceo41ve-xt1xh8rwrrfgoptak1wl9ehco0am...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_10_STABLE
Details
--
doc: clarify that "excluded" ON CONFLICT is a single row
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwa4j0+wuo7kw1plbjoevzpn+q_j+p2bxxnnclaszy7...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://
doc: clarify that "excluded" ON CONFLICT is a single row
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwa4j0+wuo7kw1plbjoevzpn+q_j+p2bxxnnclaszy7...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
---
h
doc: clarify that "excluded" ON CONFLICT is a single row
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwa4j0+wuo7kw1plbjoevzpn+q_j+p2bxxnnclaszy7...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_13_STABLE
Details
---
h
doc: clarify that "excluded" ON CONFLICT is a single row
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwa4j0+wuo7kw1plbjoevzpn+q_j+p2bxxnnclaszy7...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_12_STABLE
Details
---
h
doc: clarify that "excluded" ON CONFLICT is a single row
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwa4j0+wuo7kw1plbjoevzpn+q_j+p2bxxnnclaszy7...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_11_STABLE
Details
---
h
doc: clarify that "excluded" ON CONFLICT is a single row
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwa4j0+wuo7kw1plbjoevzpn+q_j+p2bxxnnclaszy7...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_14_STABLE
Details
---
h
doc: clarify that "excluded" ON CONFLICT is a single row
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwa4j0+wuo7kw1plbjoevzpn+q_j+p2bxxnnclaszy7...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_10_STABLE
Details
---
h
doc: clarify the behavior of identically-named savepoints
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyqcxssusl18skcwg8qhfswoj3hjovhsozue346i4o...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_10_STABLE
Details
---
doc: clarify the behavior of identically-named savepoints
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyqcxssusl18skcwg8qhfswoj3hjovhsozue346i4o...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_13_STABLE
Details
---
doc: clarify the behavior of identically-named savepoints
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyqcxssusl18skcwg8qhfswoj3hjovhsozue346i4o...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_11_STABLE
Details
---
doc: clarify the behavior of identically-named savepoints
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyqcxssusl18skcwg8qhfswoj3hjovhsozue346i4o...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https:/
doc: clarify the behavior of identically-named savepoints
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyqcxssusl18skcwg8qhfswoj3hjovhsozue346i4o...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_14_STABLE
Details
---
doc: clarify the behavior of identically-named savepoints
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyqcxssusl18skcwg8qhfswoj3hjovhsozue346i4o...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
---
doc: clarify the behavior of identically-named savepoints
Original patch by David G. Johnston.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyqcxssusl18skcwg8qhfswoj3hjovhsozue346i4o...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_12_STABLE
Details
---
doc: move system views section to its own chapter
Previously it was inside the system catalogs chapter.
Reported-by: Peter Smith
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cahut+psmc18qp60d+l0hjboxrlqt5m88yvacdyxlq34gfph...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 15
Branch
--
master
Details
---
http
doc: move system views section to its own chapter
Previously it was inside the system catalogs chapter.
Reported-by: Peter Smith
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cahut+psmc18qp60d+l0hjboxrlqt5m88yvacdyxlq34gfph...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 15
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
-
doc: add documentation about ecpg Oracle-compatibility mode
Reported-by: Takeshi Ideriha
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/tycpr01mb7041a157067208327d8daaf9ea...@tycpr01mb7041.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Branch
--
REL_13_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org
doc: add documentation about ecpg Oracle-compatibility mode
Reported-by: Takeshi Ideriha
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/tycpr01mb7041a157067208327d8daaf9ea...@tycpr01mb7041.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org
doc: add documentation about ecpg Oracle-compatibility mode
Reported-by: Takeshi Ideriha
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/tycpr01mb7041a157067208327d8daaf9ea...@tycpr01mb7041.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/com
doc: add documentation about ecpg Oracle-compatibility mode
Reported-by: Takeshi Ideriha
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/tycpr01mb7041a157067208327d8daaf9ea...@tycpr01mb7041.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Branch
--
REL_11_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org
doc: add documentation about ecpg Oracle-compatibility mode
Reported-by: Takeshi Ideriha
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/tycpr01mb7041a157067208327d8daaf9ea...@tycpr01mb7041.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Branch
--
REL_12_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org
doc: add documentation about ecpg Oracle-compatibility mode
Reported-by: Takeshi Ideriha
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/tycpr01mb7041a157067208327d8daaf9ea...@tycpr01mb7041.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Branch
--
REL_14_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org
pg_upgrade doc: mention that replication slots must be recreated
Reported-by: Nikhil Shetty
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAFpL5Vxastip0Jei-K-=7cKXTg=5sahSe5g=om=x68nox8+...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_13_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commit
pg_upgrade doc: mention that replication slots must be recreated
Reported-by: Nikhil Shetty
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAFpL5Vxastip0Jei-K-=7cKXTg=5sahSe5g=om=x68nox8+...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_11_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commit
pg_upgrade doc: mention that replication slots must be recreated
Reported-by: Nikhil Shetty
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAFpL5Vxastip0Jei-K-=7cKXTg=5sahSe5g=om=x68nox8+...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/47
pg_upgrade doc: mention that replication slots must be recreated
Reported-by: Nikhil Shetty
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAFpL5Vxastip0Jei-K-=7cKXTg=5sahSe5g=om=x68nox8+...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_12_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commit
pg_upgrade doc: mention that replication slots must be recreated
Reported-by: Nikhil Shetty
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAFpL5Vxastip0Jei-K-=7cKXTg=5sahSe5g=om=x68nox8+...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_14_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commit
pg_upgrade doc: mention that replication slots must be recreated
Reported-by: Nikhil Shetty
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAFpL5Vxastip0Jei-K-=7cKXTg=5sahSe5g=om=x68nox8+...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_10_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commit
pg_upgrade doc: mention that replication slots must be recreated
Reported-by: Nikhil Shetty
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAFpL5Vxastip0Jei-K-=7cKXTg=5sahSe5g=om=x68nox8+...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commit
doc: clarify how dropping of extensions affects dependent objs.
Clarify that functions/procedures are dropped when any extension that
depends on them is dropped.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAKFQuwbPSHMDGkisRUmewopweC1bFvytVqB=a=X4GFg=4zw...@mail.gmail.com
B
doc: clarify how dropping of extensions affects dependent objs.
Clarify that functions/procedures are dropped when any extension that
depends on them is dropped.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAKFQuwbPSHMDGkisRUmewopweC1bFvytVqB=a=X4GFg=4zw...@mail.gmail.com
B
doc: clarify how dropping of extensions affects dependent objs.
Clarify that functions/procedures are dropped when any extension that
depends on them is dropped.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAKFQuwbPSHMDGkisRUmewopweC1bFvytVqB=a=X4GFg=4zw...@mail.gmail.com
B
doc: clarify how dropping of extensions affects dependent objs.
Clarify that functions/procedures are dropped when any extension that
depends on them is dropped.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAKFQuwbPSHMDGkisRUmewopweC1bFvytVqB=a=X4GFg=4zw...@mail.gmail.com
B
docs: make monitoring "phases" table titles consistent
Reported-by: Nitin Jadhav
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAMm1aWbmTHwHKC2PERH0CCaFVPoxrtLeS8=wnuoge94qdsp...@mail.gmail.com
Author: Nitin Jadhav
Backpatch-through: 13
Branch
--
REL_13_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.o
docs: make monitoring "phases" table titles consistent
Reported-by: Nitin Jadhav
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAMm1aWbmTHwHKC2PERH0CCaFVPoxrtLeS8=wnuoge94qdsp...@mail.gmail.com
Author: Nitin Jadhav
Backpatch-through: 13
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.o
docs: make monitoring "phases" table titles consistent
Reported-by: Nitin Jadhav
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAMm1aWbmTHwHKC2PERH0CCaFVPoxrtLeS8=wnuoge94qdsp...@mail.gmail.com
Author: Nitin Jadhav
Backpatch-through: 13
Branch
--
REL_14_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.o
docs: make monitoring "phases" table titles consistent
Reported-by: Nitin Jadhav
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAMm1aWbmTHwHKC2PERH0CCaFVPoxrtLeS8=wnuoge94qdsp...@mail.gmail.com
Author: Nitin Jadhav
Backpatch-through: 13
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/c
Clarify that pg_dump takes ACCESS SHARE lock
Add link to the description of lock levels to avoid confusing "shared locks"
with SHARE locks.
Florin Irion
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera, Tom Lane, and Nathan Bossart
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/d0f30cc2-3c76-1d43-f291-7c4b2
Clarify that pg_dump takes ACCESS SHARE lock
Add link to the description of lock levels to avoid confusing "shared locks"
with SHARE locks.
Florin Irion
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera, Tom Lane, and Nathan Bossart
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/d0f30cc2-3c76-1d43-f291-7c4b2
Fix inconsistent parameter names between prototype and declaration
Noticed while working in this area. This code was introduced in PG15,
which is still in beta, so backpatch to there for consistency.
Backpatch-through: 15
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commi
Fix inconsistent parameter names between prototype and declaration
Noticed while working in this area. This code was introduced in PG15,
which is still in beta, so backpatch to there for consistency.
Backpatch-through: 15
Branch
--
REL_15_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/p
76 matches
Mail list logo