# Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] large object regression tests

```Patch applied.  Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------```
```

Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Jeremy Drake wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > I think we could do without the Moby Dick extract too ...
> >
> > I am open to suggestions.  I saw one suggestion that I use an image of an
> > elephant, but I suspect that was tongue-in-cheek.  I am not very fond of
> > the idea of generating repetitious data, as I think it would be more
> > difficult to determine whether or not the loseek/tell functions put me in
> > the right place in the middle of the file.
>
> I just had the idea that I could use one of the existing data files which
> are used for testing COPY instead of the Moby Dick extract.  They are
> already there, a few of them are pretty good sized, they have data in the
> file which is not just simple repetition so it would be pretty obvious if
> the seek function broke, and they are very unlikely to change.  I am
> considering changing the test I put together to use tenk.data as the input
> file tomorrow and send in what I have again, since I also am doing a test
> of \lo_import (which also requires a patch to psql I sent in earlier to
> fix the output of the \lo_* commands to respect the output settings).
>
> --
> When does summertime come to Minnesota, you ask?
> Well, last year, I think it was a Tuesday.
>
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

--
Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +