extra semicolon in postgres_fdw test cases
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 & Regards,
Suraj kharage,
edbpostgres.com
Attachments:
remove_extra_semicolon_postgres_fdw.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=remove_extra_semicolon_postgres_fdw.patchDownload+4-4
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.