Re: cpluspluscheck vs ICU again - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From John Naylor
Subject Re: cpluspluscheck vs ICU again
Date
Msg-id CANWCAZaH=6P3AgZnF6zw2hJ3p2bwffegVh+pmRsTtLkTPujDVg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: cpluspluscheck vs ICU again  (John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 7:16 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BTW, I see that you applied ed26c4e25 only to master, but don't
> > we want to back-patch?  cpluspluscheck is not just an exercise in a
> > vacuum, it's to ensure that C++-coded extensions don't have trouble
> > with our headers.
>
> I was thinking that it was run only when developing new features, not
> for backpatch-able bug fixes, but that's a flawed assumption. I'll
> remedy that soon along with the new symbols above, unless you beat me
> to it.

This is done.

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrey Borodin
Date:
Subject: Re: Backpatching injection point core facilities to REL_17_STABLE
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ)