On 10/19/21, 12:37 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Actually ... why shouldn't we suppress that by running the command
> with client_min_messages = warning? This would have to be a change
> to pg_regress, but I'm having a hard time thinking of cases where
> quieting that message would be a problem.
I was just looking into something like this.
> We could dodge that, with modern versions of psql, by issuing
> two -c switches. So after a bit of hacking I have the attached
> POC patch. It's incomplete because now that we have this
> infrastructure we should change other parts of pg_regress
> to not launch psql N times where one would do. But it's enough
> to get through check-world without any chatter.
>
> Any objections to polishing this up and pushing it?
No objections here. This seems like an overall improvement, and I
confirmed that it clears up the NOTICE from the pg_upgrade test.
Nathan
