Re: Improving isolationtester's data output

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hearing few objections, I'll plan on back-patching. I'm thinking that the
>> best thing to do is apply these changes after beta2 wraps, but before we
>> branch v14.

> Great.

After checking cross-version diffs to see how painful that is likely
to be, I'm inclined to also back-patch Michael's v13 commits

989d23b04beac0c26f44c379b04ac781eaa4265e
Detect unused steps in isolation specs and do some cleanup

9903338b5ea59093d77cfe50ec0b1c22d4a7d843
Remove dry-run mode from isolationtester

as those touched some of the same code areas, and it doesn't seem like
there'd be any harm in making these aspects uniform across all the
branches. If Michael wants to do that back-patching himself, that's
fine with me, otherwise I'll do it.

Also, having slept on it, I'm leaning towards to the approach of
using PQprint() instead of just tweaking the existing code. At first
I thought that was too much churn in the output files, but it really
does seem to make them significantly more readable.

regards, tom lane