Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I submit that the test is OK as it currently is.
Yeah, I hadn't thought about the different-paths aspect at the time of
making the above comment; but given that, it is correct as-is.
OK, I still think it is easier to debug with the p
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'd put it the other way around: likely we should get rid of the
>>> one use of @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Generally I prefer explicit over implicit (having the full paths make
>> troubleshooting e
Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I believe the results paths in line 139 and 144 are missing the
>>> @abs_builddir@ qualifier.
>> I'd put it the other way around: likely we should get rid of the
>> one use of @[EMAI
Tom Lane wrote:
Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I believe the results paths in line 139 and 144 are missing the
@abs_builddir@ qualifier.
I'd put it the other way around: likely we should get rid of the
one use of @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
He, he.
Generally I prefer explici
Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe the results paths in line 139 and 144 are missing the
> @abs_builddir@ qualifier.
I'd put it the other way around: likely we should get rid of the
one use of @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
regards, tom lane
Hi,
the largeobject test does this:
137 SELECT lo_export(loid, '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest.txt')
138
139 \lo_import 'results/lotest.txt'
140
141 \set newloid :LASTOID
142
143 -- just make sure \lo_export does not barf
144 \lo_export :newloid 'results/lotest2.txt'
I believe the results paths
