Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
Some of the buildfarm machines still don't like this. It looks
like the buildfarm script is only capturing the postmaster log
and not regression.diffs, making it hard to diagnose :-(
regards, tom lane
