On Thursday 03 October 2002 12:46 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Builds fine here for RPM usage. Got an odd diff in the triggers
regression test: did we drop a NOTICE? If so, the regression output
should probably have been changed too. The diff:
***
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Builds fine here for RPM usage. Got an odd diff in the triggers regression
test: did we drop a NOTICE? If so, the regression output should probably
have been changed too. The diff:
*** ./expected/triggers.out Sat Jan 15 14:18:23 2000
---
I said:
I am inclined to have the refint.c code emit the notice unconditionally
at DEBUG1 level, and then add a SET client_min_messages = DEBUG1 in
the triggers regression test to ensure the notice will appear.
Hmm, that doesn't look that good after all: the SET causes the
regression output
Tom Lane wrote:
I said:
I am inclined to have the refint.c code emit the notice unconditionally
at DEBUG1 level, and then add a SET client_min_messages = DEBUG1 in
the triggers regression test to ensure the notice will appear.
Hmm, that doesn't look that good after all: the SET causes
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
This will work nicely for the regression tests' purposes. If there is
anyone out there actually using refint.c in production, they might be
annoyed by the NOTICE chatter, but quite honestly I doubt anyone is ---
this contrib module has
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
This will work nicely for the regression tests' purposes. If there is
anyone out there actually using refint.c in production, they might be
annoyed by the NOTICE chatter, but quite honestly I doubt anyone is ---
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the regression tests weren't really testing the actually built module, so
to speak. Is there a good reason to leave the NOTICE's in the expected
regression output?
Yes: without them the test is less useful, because you're less certain
that what
On Thursday 03 October 2002 02:31 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that confuses me though is that the build options have been
like this for a long time (at least since 7.1). Why haven't you seen
this problem before? Did you recently change the way the RPMs
