On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 20:46 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> OK, nobody else has reacted. I've spoken to Bruce and he seems happy
> with it, although, TBH, whe I talked to him I thought I understood it
> and now I'm not so sure. So we have 3 possibilities: leave it as is with
> an error-hiding hack in the test script, apply this patch which removes
> the hack and applies a fix that apparently works but which confuses us a
> bit, or go back to generating errors. The last choice would mean I would
> need to turn off pg_ugrade testing on Windows pending a fix. And we have
> to decide pretty much now so we can get 9.2 out the door.
I think now is not the time to cram in poorly understood changes into a
release candidate. There is no requirement to have the tests running
now or in time for the release, seeing also that no one has been
particularly bothered about it for the past 11 months.
