On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:09 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 01:53:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of lun sep 27 12:25:31 -0400 2010:
>> >> On Sep 27, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> >> > Um, no.
>> >> >
>> >> > In the meantime, I have arrived at the conclusion that doing this isn't
>> >> > worth it because it will break all regression test output. We can fix
>> >> > the stuff in our tree, but pg_regress is also used externally, and those
>> >> > guys would have a nightmare with this change. Perhaps if there is
>> >> > another more significant revision of the table style in the future, we
>> >> > should keep this issue in mind.
>> >> Or change the way pg_regress works.
>> > Perhaps using unaligned mode? The problem with that is that it becomes
>> > very difficult to review changes to expected output.
>> Uh, yuck! If we don't care about changing the expected output, we can
>> just trim the whitespace as Peter suggested originally.
> I must be missing something pretty crucial here as far as the
> complexity of changing all the regression tests. Wouldn't trimming
> all trailing whitespace do the trick?
Sure. But everyone using pg_regress will have to update their
regression test expected outputs.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2010-09-27 20:12:08|
|Subject: Re: trailing whitespace in psql table output|
|Previous:||From: Dmitriy Igrishin||Date: 2010-09-27 18:25:04|
|Subject: Re: Large objects.|