Re: [PATCHES] pg_regress: paths in largeobject test

2007-12-03 Thread Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway
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

Re: [PATCHES] pg_regress: paths in largeobject test

2007-11-30 Thread Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway
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 explicit

Re: [PATCHES] pg_regress: paths in largeobject test

2007-11-30 Thread Tom Lane
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 easier), but in

Re: [PATCHES] pg_regress: paths in largeobject test

2007-11-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PATCHES] pg_regress: paths in largeobject test

2007-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
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