On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 01:53:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Since the discussion seems to have trailed off, I'm going to run with > lo_from_bytea(). The plan is: > > 1. Rename the function. > 2. Add an opr_sanity regression test memorializing what we should get > from lo_initialize()'s query. > 3. Make sure that the regression tests leave behind a few large objects, > so that testing of pg_dump/pg_restore using the regression database > will exercise the large-object code paths.
Sounds good. > It'd be a good thing if the TAP tests for client programs included > testing of pg_dump/pg_restore, but that's a bit beyond my competence > with that tool ... anyone care to step up? The pg_upgrade test suite covers this well. > Redoing or getting rid of lo_initialize()'s query would be a good thing > too; but that does not seem like material for back-patching into 9.4, > while I think all the above are. I agree all the above make sense for 9.4. I also wouldn't object to a hardening of lo_initialize() sneaking in at this stage. Thanks, nm -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
