Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I'm doubtful that it's good that we use BAIL_OUT so liberally, because it
> prevents further tests from running (i.e. if 001 bails, 002+ doesn't run),
> which doesn't generally seem like the right thing to do after a single test
> fails. But that's really independent of the fix you make here.
Agreed, that's a separate question. It does seem like "stop this script
and move to the next one" would be better behavior, though.
> I'd maybe do s/later/in the END block/ or such, so that one knows where to
> look. Took me a minute to find it again.
OK.
regards, tom lane
