From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Romu Hu <huruomu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Need guidance on regression.diffs |
Date: | 2014-10-29 02:25:20 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQV=uygLLfZai4=EXa7CAdRFmuTZ4aZPmTs4b7rgeoUpw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Romu Hu <huruomu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I ran the test against an existing installation (redhat enterprise linux
> software collection postgresql92). The postgres server and the tests are
> from the same source package.
Well, your diffs are telling us the contrary. The additional columns
of \d+ have been added by this commit which is a new feature of
Postgres 9.4, introduced by this commit:
commit: 4168c00a5d9c0c0c17cdfc902587b6d22ea1720f
author: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:28:54 -0400
psql: conditionally display oids and replication identity
In psql \d+, display oids only when they exist, and display replication
identity only when it is non-default. Also document the defaults for
replication identity for system and non-system tables. Update
regression output.
So you may be indeed running the tests on a 9.2 server, but what is
sure is that you are comparing the results with the regression output
of a 9.4 server.
Regards,
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-10-29 02:35:15 | Re: BUG #11811: Server segfault with many subpartitions when using nestloop |
Previous Message | Romu Hu | 2014-10-29 01:44:23 | Re: [GENERAL] Need guidance on regression.diffs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-29 03:23:46 | Re: [GENERAL] Need guidance on regression.diffs |
Previous Message | David G Johnston | 2014-10-29 01:54:19 | Re: Query optimization |