Re: isolationtester: add session name to application name
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2021-12-13T18:57:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@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
Commits
-
isolationtester: append session name to application_name.
- dbc5cdd5cbb8 10.20 landed
- c99fd65fa207 11.15 landed
- a5fe66bfdaec 12.10 landed
- 65f860e78a04 13.6 landed
- 5b5455b035c6 14.2 landed
- 3f323956128f 15.0 landed
-
backpatch "Set application_name per-test in isolation and ecpg tests."
- 30d57136fcef 10.20 landed
- dfdf445fe515 11.15 landed
- fe490f9ad7ab 12.10 landed