Re: Slightly bogus regression test for contrib/dblink

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Slightly bogus regression test for contrib/dblink
Date: 2006-06-20 18:27:30
Message-ID: 25348.1150828050@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It looks to me like the diffs are consistent with the idea that the
>>> test is using a copy of dblink that predates this patch ...

> I would think that the diffs would be significantly larger if that were
> the case. In fact, when was PG_MODULE_MAGIC first made mandatory?

Good point. So then why the failure?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-20 18:41:33 Re: Slightly bogus regression test for contrib/dblink
Previous Message Joe Conway 2006-06-20 18:25:11 Re: Slightly bogus regression test for contrib/dblink