Re: pgsql: Address portability issues in bfe16d1a5 test output.

On 2016-09-12 21:49:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2016-09-12 21:33:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It looks like making your tables temp would work around it ...
>
> > Right. But the more general question about the value of that test
> > remain. Not that the tables in this test matter given how simple they
> > are, but in general it doesn't hurt to have objects survive the
> > regression tests, to increase dump coverage.
>
> > Shouldn't we just drop that test?
>
> Fair question --- it's not immediately obvious what that tests
> that isn't covered at least as well by the adjacent tests.
> The git history isn't much help: all of that came in in one big
> commit from Tom Lockhart.

Well, then let's drop it (including the definition of user_relns). Doing
so unless somebody protests pdq.

Andres