On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 11/14/16 3:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I don't mind. This patch uses the following pattern:
>> $(or $(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
>> While something more spread in Postgres source would be something like that:
>> $(if $(PROVE_TESTS),$(PR
On 11/14/16 3:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I don't mind. This patch uses the following pattern:
> $(or $(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
> While something more spread in Postgres source would be something like that:
> $(if $(PROVE_TESTS),$(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
> It seems to me that we'd prefer that for con
On 14 November 2016 at 16:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 11 November 2016 at 18:13, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem t
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 11 November 2016 at 18:13, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be
>>> doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :
On 11 November 2016 at 18:13, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be
>> doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :)
>
> Yes please!
No immediate takers, so adding to CF.
I've
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be
> doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :)
Yes please!
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to y
