On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 03:20:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we're going to keep them in vacuum.sql, we should use the
> client_min_messages fix there, as that's a full solution not just
> reducing the window. But I don't agree that these tests are worth
> the cycles, given the coverage elsewhere. The probability of breaking
> this option is just not high enough to justify core-regression-test
> coverage.
I would rather keep the solution with client_min_messages, and the
tests in vacuum.sql to keep those checks for the grammar parsing. So
this basically brings us back to use the patch I proposed here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20191107013942.GA1768@paquier.xyz
Any objections?
--
Michael
