Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
| От | Neha Khatri |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFO0U+_nLn_GEgDAZEjpjUoAnp7uYFZ766ymdui3Jd9iufw2Bg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@
On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote:
> make installcheck currently fails against a server running
> with bytea_output = escape.
>
> Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing.
>
> Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output
> locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire
> 'regression' database.
I would use option 2 here (ALTER DATABASE) and be done with it. Some
people didn't like using ALTER DATABASE, but it's consistent with
existing use. If someone wants to change that, that can be independent
of this issue.
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
Regards,
Neha
Neha
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: