| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: smallserial / serial2 |
| Date: | 2011-06-22 15:35:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1103.1308756943@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> That previous approach of adding extra expected files isn't going to
> scale nicely if there are multiple places at risk ... but do we need
> multiple places selecting the sequence contents? I remain of the
> opinion that just omitting the value isn't good testing policy.
Actually, on looking closer, you didn't add additional selections from
sequences. The real problem here is simply that you forgot to update
expected/sequence_1.out altogether. So Robert's "fix" should be
reverted in favor of doing that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-22 15:48:56 | Re: pg_dump vs malloc |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-06-22 15:26:21 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |