On 10/19/21, 12:37 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@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
