On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 4:41 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> >> I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses
> >> pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some
> >> suffering/puzzled users/developers, e.g. [1]. Not 100% sure if it
> >> makes investing the time into backpatching worth it. However if
> >> someone could do it, it would be nice.
>
> > FWIW, I am not really sure that this is important enough to justify a
> > back-patch, even it is true that there have been cases in the past
> > where extra binaries got added in minor releases.
>
> Yeah, I think adding a binary in a minor release is a Big Deal to
> packagers. I doubt that the case here justifies that.
+1.
Given the number of complaints from people lacking it since the binary
was first created, I can't see how that's a priority that justifies
that.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
