On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: > 2011/12/23 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: >>> I'd like the regression test on select_view test being committed also >>> to detect unexpected changed in the future. How about it? >> >> Can you resend that as a separate patch? I remember there were some >> things I didn't like about it, but I don't remember what they were at >> the moment... >> > Sorry for this late response. > > The attached one is patch of the regression test that checks scenario > of malicious function with/without security_barrier option. > > I guess you concerned about that expected/select_views_1.out is > patched, not expected/select_views.out. > I'm not sure the reason why regression test script tries to make diff > between results/select_views and expected/select_views_1.out.
select_views.out and select_views_1.out are alternate expected output files. The regression tests pass if the actual output matches either one. Thus, you have to patch both. BTW, can you also resubmit the leakproof stuff as a separate patch for the last CF? Want to make sure we get that into 9.2, if at all possible. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
