On 2019-Sep-09, Tom Lane wrote: > As for that, now that we realize that this applies to more than > just NOTICEs, I think we should back-patch the code change in > 30717637c at least to v11, maybe all the way. I don't see any > WARNINGs in the isolation expected files before v11, but it > hardly seems unlikely that we might back-patch some future test > that expects those to be printed in a consistent way. > > The case for back-patching ebd499282 (allow NOTICEs to print) > is weaker, but it still seems like it might be a hazard for > back-patching test cases if we don't do so. > > On balance I'm inclined to back-patch both changes. Thoughts?
As well as a28e10e82e54, I suppose. I agree with keeping the tool similar across branches, if we're going to do this. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
