Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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