Re: [HACKERS] Almost there on column aliases

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>>>> I'm currently (2000-02-16 15:40 GMT) seeing the rules test
>>>> blank-filling the "bpchar" fields. Do you see that?

> Hmm. Still seeing it; here is a snippet from a diff of
> results/rules.out and expected/rules.out:

> ...
> < rtest_emp | rtest_emp_ins | CREATE RULE rtest_emp_ins
> AS ON INSERT TO rtest_emp DO
> INSERT INTO rtest_emplog (ename, who, "action", newsal, oldsal)
> VALUES (new.ename, getpgusername(),
> 'hired '::bpchar, new.salary, '$0.00'::money);
> ...
>> rtest_emp | rtest_emp_ins | CREATE RULE rtest_emp_ins
> AS ON INSERT TO rtest_emp DO
> INSERT INTO rtest_emplog (ename, who, "action", newsal, oldsal)
> VALUES (new.ename, getpgusername(),
> 'hired'::bpchar, new.salary, '$0.00'::money);
> ...

Oh, I'm sorry, I *am* seeing that. I don't think this has anything
to do with your changes; the system's been producing pre-padded
strings in those tests for a while now, at least on good days ;-).
If you look closely you'll see that the padded string has just been
pre-coerced to the length of the char() target field. I don't think
that's wrong.

The difference is normally masked from causing a comparison failure
in the regress tests because we use diff -w to look for differences.
Probably the expected file was last updated at a time when it wasn't
doing that...

regards, tom lane