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
