Re: More on the libxml2 update situation

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:55:40AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm starting to think that maybe we'd better knuckle under and provide
>> a variant expected file that matches this behavior.  We're likely to be
>> seeing it in the wild for some time to come.

> I would look at handling this by suppressing the exact error message from the
> output.

I had actually thought a little bit about whether we could put back the
missing output, along the lines of "if it's a syntax-type error and no
error cursor was supplied, assume we should put a cursor at end of input".
It might be worth pursuing if Veillard indicates an unwillingness to
change libxml2 going forward, because a syntax error with no location
can be pretty unfriendly.  But I'll wait to see some response from him
before expending a lot of energy here.

> A variant expected output would be okay, though.

I pushed a set of those an hour ago.  I hope it's just a short-term
hack, but we'll see.  In any case there were now two buildfarm critters
failing, reinforcing the idea that this behavior is spreading.
        regards, tom lane