Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Questions:
> - I'm planning to backpatch the test as 031_recovery_conflict.pl, even though
> preceding numbers are unused. It seems way more problematic to use a
> different number in the backbranches than have gaps?

+1

> - The test uses pump_until() and wait_for_log(), which don't exist in the
> backbranches. For now I've just inlined the implementation, but I guess we
> could also backpatch their introduction?

I'd backpatch --- seems unlikely this will be the last need for 'em.

> pgindent uses some crazy formatting nearby:
> SendRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin(
> PROCSIG_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_STARTUP_DEADLOCK);

I do not believe that that line break is pgindent's fault.
If you just fold it into one line it should stay that way.

regards, tom lane