Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Some of the buildfarm machines still don't like this.
> It proves me wrong about the ordering in which the steps return
> completion being consistent:
> ***************
> *** 20,24 ****
> unlck
> t
> - step s1i: <... completed>
> step s2i: <... completed>
> --- 20,24 ----
> unlck
> t
> step s2i: <... completed>
> + step s1i: <... completed>
> Again this could be solved by just including an alternate file, or we
> could go a bit further and report all completed steps in a single line
> rather than each in its own line. This would require patching
> isolationtester back to 9.6, but it should be a small fix ... Will look
> into it after pushing another patch.
No, I think that's probably a bad idea, because it would mean that in
cases where you do care about the finishing order (which is all of
them up to now), the test output would fail to prove that you got the
expected behavior.
At this point I'm on board with using an alternate expected file.
We could revert the test back to your original version and make
the pre-9.6 branches look the same, which would be good.
regards, tom lane