Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL?
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGK8TB0VisxG7BDBM=aTVkxw1qdag4P7Mv5Sg2e431=T7Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 5:32 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > Here's what I came up with for pg_upgrade.  It tests each database's
> > encodings with PG_VALID_BE_ENCODING(), and looks like this when it
> > fails:
> > ...
> > I'll wait a bit longer for this one, on the off chance of reviews at
> > this late hour.
>
> Passes a quick eyeball check, anyway.

Thanks!  And pushed.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL?
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical Replication - revisit `is_table_publication` function implementation