Re: pg_regress: Treat child process failure as test failure

> On 22 Feb 2023, at 21:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>>> On 22 Feb 2023, at 21:33, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-22 15:10:11 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>>> Rebased patch to handle breakage of v2 due to bd8d453e9b.
>
>>> I think we probably should just apply this? The current behaviour doesn't seem
>>> right, and I don't see a downside of the new behaviour?
>
>> Agreed, I can't think of a regression test where we wouldn't want this. My
>> only concern was if any of the ECPG tests were doing something odd that would
>> break from this but I can't see anything.
>
> +1. I was a bit surprised to realize that we might not count such
> a case as a failure.

Done that way, thanks!

--
Daniel Gustafsson