Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > Actually, so far only 9.6 and up have failed. Maybe the old > > isolationtester is different enough that the other thing doesn't happen. > > > I'm more inclined now to add the alternate file instead of the other > > patch. > > Meh. I'd rather have the more stable test going forward; I think > alternate expected-files too easily hide unexpected behavior. We could > try leaving 9.4/9.5 alone and see if it's true that it doesn't fail > there. If not, I wouldn't mind losing the test in those branches > --- it's mainly intended to catch future breakage, after all. Makes sense. Pushed to 9.6 and up. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
