> Agreed, fixed. Also run through pgindent > Thank you for the adjustments.
> I agree that it's not really worth having tests for this, and I take > your point about the dependency on wal_level that we don't currently > have. The problem is that the core tests include publications > already, and it doesn't seem like a great idea to move the whole lot > to a TAP test. Creating alternative expected files seems like a bad > idea too (annoying to maintain, wouldn't compose well with the next > thing like this). So... how about we just suppress WARNINGs for > CREATE PUBLICATION commands that are expected to succeed? Like in the > attached. This version passes installcheck with any wal_level. > All right, for me. If wal_level can not interfere with the testes result, it seems to a better approach *Lucas Viecelli* <http://www.leosoft.com.br/coopcred>
