Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take
От | Amit Khandekar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJ3gD9e7BQFLnBUU1B763m1Vt38sn76JCCKW+_-tSqxwGeJ03g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 15:29, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:33 AM Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Regression tests that use \d+ to show the table details might > > not be interested specifically in table access method. But these will > > fail if run with a modified default access method. > > I see your point, but if a test is not interested specifically in a table am, > then I guess it wouldn't use a custom table am in the first place, right? Right. It wouldn't use a custom table am. But I mean, despite not using a custom table am, the test would fail if the regression runs with a changed default access method, because the regression output file has only one particular am value output. > Anyway, I don't have strong opinion here, so if everyone agrees that HIDE_TABLEAM > will show/hide access method unconditionally, I'm fine with that. Yeah, I agree it's subjective. -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: