Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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