Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-03-13 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-03-09 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-03-09 Thread David G. Johnston
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-03-09 Thread Neha Khatri
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-03-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-15 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-15 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-15 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-15 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-15 Thread neha khatri
Agreed with Jeff, false alarms should be avoided, whenever it is easy to put the avoiding mechanism in place. Regards, Neha

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-15 Thread Jeff Janes
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-14 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-14 Thread neha khatri
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

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

2017-02-14 Thread neha khatri
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