Re: Improving isolationtester's data output

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-Jun-15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we wanted to buy into that, I'd think about discarding this
>> ad-hoc code altogether in favor of using one of libpq's fe-print.c
>> routines. But I'm not really sure that the small legibility gains
>> that would result are worth massive changes in the output files.

> Shrug -- it's a one time change. It wouldn't bother me, for one.

Going forward it wouldn't be a problem, but back-patching isolation
test cases might find it annoying. On the other hand, my nearby
patch to improve isolation test stability is already going to create
issues of that sort. (Unless, dare I say it, we back-patch that.)

I do find it a bit attractive to create some regression-testing
coverage of fe-print.c. We are never going to remove that code,
AFAICS, so getting some benefit from it would be nice.

regards, tom lane