Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobaMufFc+5oe2JKWgpXHQvg0aBwUqEB9Nn-qAuX1uFEDw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck (Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: