Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 7/9/20 3:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should we consider back-patching the CRLF filtering changes, ie
>> 91bdf499b + ffb4cee43? It's not really necessary perhaps, but
>> I dislike situations where the "same" test on different branches is
>> testing different things. Seems like a recipe for future surprises.
> Yes please.
Done.
regards, tom lane