Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote:
>> With this, if an installcheck is done, that might also have been done with
>> the expectation that the output will be in 'escape' format. In that case,
>> how much is it
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote:
> Sorry about the naive question, but if someone has set the GUC bytea_output
> = 'escape', then the intention seem to be to obtain the output in 'escape'
> format for bytea.
> With this, if an installcheck is done, that
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > make installcheck currently fails against a server running
>> > with
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > make installcheck currently fails against a server running
> > with bytea_output = escape.
> >
> > Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth
On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote:
> make installcheck currently fails against a server running
> with bytea_output = escape.
>
> Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing.
>
> Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output
> locally where-ever
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-02-15 18:30:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we tried to lock that down it'd be counterproductive for the reason
>> Andres mentions: sometimes you *want* to see what you get for other
>> settings.
> We could kinda address that by doing it in a
On 2017-02-15 18:30:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we tried to lock that down it'd be counterproductive for the reason
> Andres mentions: sometimes you *want* to see what you get for other
> settings.
We could kinda address that by doing it in a separate file early in the
schedule, which could
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-02-15 09:30:39 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> I don't really see the cost here.
> Because that means we essentially need to make sure that our tests pass
> with a combination of about ~20-30 behaviour changing gucs, and ~5
> different compilation
Hi,
On 2017-02-15 09:30:39 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > What's your reason to get this fixed?
> >
>
> More testing is better than less testing, and a good way to get less
> testing is requiring the tester to memorize a
Agreed with Jeff, false alarms should be avoided, whenever it is easy to
put the avoiding mechanism in place.
Regards,
Neha
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
> On February 14, 2017 9:02:14 PM PST, neha khatri
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, neha khatri
> > wrote:.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Attached are two options for
Andres Freund writes:
> I don't quite see the point of this - there's a lot of settings that cause
> spurious test failures. I don't see any point fixing random cases of that.
> And I don't think the continual cost of doing so overall is worth the minimal
> gain.
> What's
On February 14, 2017 9:02:14 PM PST, neha khatri wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, neha khatri
> wrote:.
>>
>>
>>> Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output
>>> locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, neha khatri
wrote:.
>
>
>> Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output
>> locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire
>> 'regression' database.
>>
>
> The solution that overrides
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> make installcheck currently fails against a server running
> with bytea_output = escape.
>
> Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing.
>
> Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides
15 matches
Mail list logo