Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 04:22:18PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>So, right now we are only add \r for function bodies, which is mostly > >>harmless, but what if a function body has strings with an embedded > >>newlines? What about creating a table with newlines in its identifiers: > >> > >>CREA

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/05/2012 03:50 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/05/2012 03:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 03:17:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: The PG_BINARY_W change has only been verified on a non-buildfarm setup on my laptop (Mingw) Note that while it does look like there's a b

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 03:50:13PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>The second lot of CRs (seen in the second dump file in the diff i > >>previously sent) is produced by pg_upgrade writing its output in > >>text mode, which turns LF into CRLF. The solution to that is the > >>patch to dump.c I poste

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/05/2012 03:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 03:17:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: The PG_BINARY_W change has only been verified on a non-buildfarm setup on my laptop (Mingw) Note that while it does look like there's a bug either in pg_upgrade or pg_dumpall, it's prob

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/05/2012 03:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: OK, I now have a complete handle on what's going on here, and withdraw my earlier statement that I am confused on this issue :-) First, one lot of CRs is produced because the pg_upgrade test script calls pg_dumpall without -f and r

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 03:17:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >The PG_BINARY_W change has only been verified on a non-buildfarm > >setup on my laptop (Mingw) > > > >Note that while it does look like there's a bug either in > >pg_upgrade or pg_dumpall, it's probably mostly harmless (adding > >so

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > OK, I now have a complete handle on what's going on here, and withdraw > my earlier statement that I am confused on this issue :-) > First, one lot of CRs is produced because the pg_upgrade test script > calls pg_dumpall without -f and redirects that to a file, which Wi

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/05/2012 09:46 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/05/2012 09:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I reviewed this idea and supports this patch's inclusion in 9.2. I was unclear why it was needed, but I see pg_dumpall, which is the file pg_upgrade splits apart, as also using binary mode to write thi

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/05/2012 09:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I reviewed this idea and supports this patch's inclusion in 9.2. I was unclear why it was needed, but I see pg_dumpall, which is the file pg_upgrade splits apart, as also using binary mode to write this file: OPF = fopen(filename, P

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 03:44:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/04/2012 03:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >I realized this morning that I might have been a bit cavalier in > >using dos2unix to smooth away differences in the dumpfiles > >produced by pg_upgrade. Attached is a dump of the d

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 20:46 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> OK, nobody else has reacted. I've spoken to Bruce and he seems happy >> with it, although, TBH, whe I talked to him I thought I understood it >> and now I'm not so sure. So we have 3 possibilities: leave it as

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 20:46 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > OK, nobody else has reacted. I've spoken to Bruce and he seems happy > with it, although, TBH, whe I talked to him I thought I understood it > and now I'm not so sure. So we have 3 possibilities: leave it as is with > an error-hiding hac

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 08:46:53PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/04/2012 03:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >On 09/04/2012 03:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>I realized this morning that I might have been a bit cavalier in > >>using dos2unix to smooth away differences in the dumpfiles

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/04/2012 03:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/04/2012 03:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I realized this morning that I might have been a bit cavalier in using dos2unix to smooth away differences in the dumpfiles produced by pg_upgrade. Attached is a dump of the diff if this isn't done,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

2012-09-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/04/2012 03:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I realized this morning that I might have been a bit cavalier in using dos2unix to smooth away differences in the dumpfiles produced by pg_upgrade. Attached is a dump of the diff if this isn't done, with Carriage Returns printed as '*' to make the