From: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: md5(bytea) |
Date: | 2005-05-19 05:01:07 |
Message-ID: | 20050519050107.GA22511@penne.toroid.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
At 2005-05-18 23:31:27 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>
> Doesn't that change cause the opr_sanity regression test to complain?
Yes, it does. I'm sorry I didn't notice.
As far as I can tell, updating the test as below is the correct thing
to do.
-- ams
*** src/test/regress/expected/opr_sanity.out~ 2005-05-19 10:16:47.821895189 +0530
--- src/test/regress/expected/opr_sanity.out 2005-05-19 10:17:05.336835847 +0530
***************
*** 110,121 ****
(p1.proargtypes[0] < p2.proargtypes[0]);
proargtypes | proargtypes
-------------+-------------
25 | 1042
25 | 1043
1114 | 1184
1560 | 1562
2277 | 2283
! (5 rows)
SELECT DISTINCT p1.proargtypes[1], p2.proargtypes[1]
FROM pg_proc AS p1, pg_proc AS p2
--- 110,122 ----
(p1.proargtypes[0] < p2.proargtypes[0]);
proargtypes | proargtypes
-------------+-------------
+ 17 | 25
25 | 1042
25 | 1043
1114 | 1184
1560 | 1562
2277 | 2283
! (6 rows)
SELECT DISTINCT p1.proargtypes[1], p2.proargtypes[1]
FROM pg_proc AS p1, pg_proc AS p2
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-19 05:28:31 | Re: md5(bytea) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-05-19 03:46:31 | Re: Refactoring in lock.c |