Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The main thing I would be worried about is whether you're sure
> that you have separated the RESET-as-a-command case from the cases
> where we actually are rolling back to a previous state.
It looks good to me. I added a few regression tests for that.
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for such a comment.
Added.
The attached patch includes these. If it seems close, I'd be happy
to come up with a version for the 9.1 branch. Basically it looks
like that means omitting the changes to variable.c (which only
changed message text and made the order of steps on related GUCs
more consistent), and capturing a different out file for the
expected directory.
-Kevin
