| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bytea_output vs make installcheck |
| Date: | 2017-03-10 03:31:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobaMufFc+5oe2JKWgpXHQvg0aBwUqEB9Nn-qAuX1uFEDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Sorry about the naive question, but if someone has set the GUC bytea_output
> = 'escape', then the intention seem to be to obtain the output in 'escape'
> format for bytea.
> With this, if an installcheck is done, that might also have been done with
> the expectation that the output will be in 'escape' format. In that case,
> how much is it justified to hard code the format for regression database?
> However, I agree that there are not many bytea outputs in the current
> regression suite
I don't understand this. People don't run the regression tests to get
the output. They run the regression tests to see whether they pass.
While it may not be possible to make them pass with arbitrarily-crazy
settings, that's not a reason not to patch up the cases we can handle
sanely.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-03-10 04:04:21 | Re: foreign partition DDL regression tests |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-10 03:27:22 | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |