Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes:
> On 2019-09-09 22:13:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> writes:
>>> As well as a28e10e82e54, I suppose. I agree with keeping the tool
>>> similar across branches, if we're going to do this.
>> Hm, good point. My first thought was that a28e10e82e54 is just
>> cosmetic, but it isn't entirely, because it suppresses notice
>> reports on the control connection. That means it might actually
>> be a prerequisite to having stable output with ebd499282 (the
>> change of client_min_messages).
>>
>> After reviewing the git log a little more, I'm inclined to think
>> we should only back-patch this stuff to 9.6, which is where 38f8bdcac
>> ("Modify the isolation tester so that multiple sessions can wait")
>> and a number of follow-up patches came in. That was enough of a
>> quantum jump in flexibility that it'd likely limit our ability to
>> back-patch tests further than that anyway. Also I don't think the
>> patches mentioned here would apply without that ...
> That seems like a good plan to me.
Hearing no votes against, I'll go make it so.
regards, tom lane
