Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> However this means that the test will get removed in 9.4 and 9.5 because
>> isolationtester is not smart enough there.
>>
>> I suppose the other option would be to add an alternate expected file
>> for the test.
> 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.
regards, tom lane