Re: raw output from copy

>
>
>> The regression tests seem to adequately cover all new functionality,
>> though I wonder if we should add some cases that highlight situations where
>> BINARY mode is insufficient.
>>
>>
One thing I tried to test RAW was to load an existing json file.

My own personal test was to load an existing .json file into a 1x1 bytea
table, which worked. From there I was able to
select encode(col_name,'escape')::text::jsonb from test_table
and the json was correctly converted.

A similar test copying binary failed.

A write up of the test looks like this:

\copy (select '{"foo": "bar"}') to '/tmp/raw_test.jsonb' (format raw);
COPY 1
create temporary table raw_byte (b bytea);
CREATE TABLE
create temporary table raw_text (t text);
CREATE TABLE
\copy raw_jsonb from '/tmp/raw_test.blob' (format raw);
psql:/home/ubuntu/raw_test.sql:9: ERROR: relation "raw_jsonb" does not
exist
\copy raw_byte from '/tmp/raw_test.blob' (format raw);
COPY 1
select encode(b,'escape')::text::json from raw_byte;
encode
----------------
{"foo": "bar"}
(1 row)

\copy raw_text from '/tmp/raw_test.blob' (format raw);
COPY 1
select t::jsonb from raw_text;
t
----------------
{"foo": "bar"}
(1 row)

create temporary table binary_byte (b bytea);
CREATE TABLE
create temporary table binary_text (t text);
CREATE TABLE
\copy binary_byte from '/tmp/raw_test.blob' (format binary);
psql:/home/ubuntu/raw_test.sql:22: ERROR: COPY file signature not
recognized
select encode(b,'escape')::jsonb from binary_byte;
encode
--------
(0 rows)

\copy binary_text from '/tmp/raw_test.blob' (format binary);
psql:/home/ubuntu/raw_test.sql:26: ERROR: COPY file signature not
recognized
select t::jsonb from binary_text;
t
---
(0 rows)

So, *if* we want to add a regression test to demonstrate to posterity why
we need RAW for cases that BINARY can't handle, I offer the attached file.

Does anyone else see value in adding that to the regression tests?

> Before I give my approval, I want to read it again more closely to make
>> sure that no cases were skipped with regard to the (binary || raw) and
>> (binary || !raw) tests. Also, I want to use it on some of my problematic
>> files. Maybe I'll find a good edge case. Probably not.
>>
>
I don't know why I thought this, but when I looked at the patch, I assumed
that the ( binary || raw ) tests were part of a large if/elseif/else
waterfall. They are not. They stand alone. There are no edge cases to find.

Review complete and passed. I can re-review if we want to add the
additional test.