On 10/12/2015 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, well, why wasn't that back-patched? We expect these tests to run
>> on Windows don't we?
> The message related to this particular commit is here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55B90161.5090506@iki.fi
> I recall that we discussed about back-patching more such things to
> improve the buildfarm coverage but I guess it fell from other's radar.
> Would you consider pushing any sync-up patch for 9.5 and 9.4 I could
> send? At quick glance, I think that's basically a combination of
> adb4950, 13d856e1, 690ed2b and ff85fc8. Andrew, Noah, Heikki, and
> others feel free to object of course if you think that's an utterly
> bad idea.
In general I think we can be a good deal more liberal about backpatching
the testing regime than we are with production code, where we are always
cautious, and the caution has paid big dividends in our reputation for
stability.
cheers
andrew
