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

```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.