What about pattern matching? being able to write regular expressions on the expected outputs?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 8:08 PM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2026-Feb-13, Yasir wrote: > > > can we add alternative test output files for the changes caused by > > different block sizes? E.g: the attached poc patch. Whether such an > > approach would be acceptable? > > Absolutely not. For starters, how did you verify that these new files > are correct? Second, I imagine this patch is just for this one file, > but that there numerous other files that would have to be patched, > right? If so, how many, and how extensive are the changes? > > If you wanted to propose some surgical interventions to the affected > files that made the tests pass for other page sizes, then perhaps that > could be entertained. Looking at the files you sent, I see that from > the original to _2.out there are two plan changes (hash aggregates > become group aggregates); then from _2.out to _1.out a single query > changes from indexscan to bitmap scan; and lastly, from the original to > _3.out there are some seqscans that become index scans. So if you were > to propose a patch that adds a SET call to disable some plan type just > before one query, and RESET it immediately after that query; and with > such a change the test runs unchanged across all block sizes, then maybe > that would be something we could consider. (However, getting a > committer to review such changes might be a hard sell also -- no > promises!) > > Also, if you find that you need too many changes of this kind in order > to make this work, then that's probably not going to fly either. > > > Which other compile time options are expected to cause test failures? > > You're welcome to experiment and let us know what you find. > > -- > Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — > https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ > > >
