Thread: extra semicolon in postgres_fdw test cases

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:21 PM Suraj Kharage
<suraj.kharage@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Noticed that an extra semicolon in a couple of test cases related to postgres_fdw. Removed that in the attached
patch.It can be backported till v11 where we added those test cases.
 

+1 for the change. It looks like a typo and can be backported.

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:50 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:21 PM Suraj Kharage
> <suraj.kharage@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Noticed that an extra semicolon in a couple of test cases related to postgres_fdw. Removed that in the attached
patch.It can be backported till v11 where we added those test cases.
 
>
> +1 for the change. It looks like a typo and can be backported.
>

Looks good to me as well but I think one can choose not to backpatch
as there is no functional impact but OTOH, there is some value in
keeping tests/code consistent.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:21 PM Suraj Kharage
<suraj.kharage@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Noticed that an extra semicolon in a couple of test cases related to postgres_fdw. Removed that in the attached
patch.It can be backported till v11 where we added those test cases.
 
>

Thanks for identifying this, the changes look fine to me.

Regards,
Vignesh

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 05:00:53PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Looks good to me as well but I think one can choose not to backpatch
> as there is no functional impact but OTOH, there is some value in
> keeping tests/code consistent.

FWIW, I would not bother with the back branches for just that, but if
you feel that this is better, of course feel free.
--
Michael

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:35 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 05:00:53PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Looks good to me as well but I think one can choose not to backpatch
> > as there is no functional impact but OTOH, there is some value in
> > keeping tests/code consistent.
>
> FWIW, I would not bother with the back branches for just that, but if
> you feel that this is better, of course feel free.
>

Fair enough. I'll push this just for HEAD.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:47 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:35 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 05:00:53PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Looks good to me as well but I think one can choose not to backpatch
> > > as there is no functional impact but OTOH, there is some value in
> > > keeping tests/code consistent.
> >
> > FWIW, I would not bother with the back branches for just that, but if
> > you feel that this is better, of course feel free.
> >
>
> Fair enough. I'll push this just for HEAD.
>

Pushed!

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.