Re: buildfarm failures in ECPG-Check

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: buildfarm failures in ECPG-Check
Date: 2006-10-03 22:54:15
Message-ID: 25427.1159916055@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> writes:
> It looks like something broke the ECPG-Check recently. A number of
> buildfarm members are failing.

Looks like blow-back from the recent change in default GUC parameters.

However, I think "update the expected output" is the wrong answer,
because what we are looking at here is evidence that the ecpg checks
will fail anyway against an installed system with nondefault settings.
That test needs to be modified so that it doesn't depend on the value
of any GUC parameter that it hasn't set for itself.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Graham Davis 2006-10-03 23:03:30 formatting intervals with to_char
Previous Message mark 2006-10-03 22:49:40 Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris