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. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > 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. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
