Hi,
On 2021-12-13 13:57:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2021-12-13 19:46:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> +1 for the idea. Maybe it could be backpatched?
>
> > Not entirely trivially - the changes have some dependencies on other changes
> > (e.g. b1907d688, more on 741d7f104, but that was backpatched). I guess we
> > could backpatch b1907d688 as well, but I'm not sure its worth it?
>
> I think we've more recently had the idea that isolationtester features
> should be back-patched to avoid gotchas when back-patching test cases.
> For instance, all the isolationtester work I did this past summer was
> back-patched. So from that vantage point, back-patching b1907d688
> seems fine.
Since there seems support for that approach, I've backpatched b1907d688 and
will push application_name isolationtester change once running the tests
across all branches finishes locally.
Regards,
Andres