On 26/06/2024 14:54, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 3:34 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>> I haven't looked closely at the new PgFFI stuff but +1 on that in
>> general, and it makes sense to backport that once it lands on master. In
>> the meanwhile, I think we should backport BackgroundPsql as it is, to
>> make it possible to backport tests using it right now, even if it is
>> short-lived.
>
> +1. The fact that PgFFI may be coming isn't a reason to not back-patch
> this. The risk of back-patching testing infrastructure is also very
> low as compared with code; in fact, there's a lot of risk from NOT
> back-patching popular testing infrastructure.
Ok, I pushed commits to backport BackgroundPsql down to v12. I used
"option 2", i.e. I changed background_psql() to return the new
BackgroundPsql object.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
