From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |
Date: | 2022-07-30 00:22:35 |
Message-ID: | 139504.1659140555@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Here's a patch that uses a variant of that approach: it just runs
> safe_psql straight up and gets the output, then writes it out to temp
> files if the output doesn't match and we need to run diff. Let me know
> what you think of this.
That looks good to me, although obviously I don't know for sure
if it will make wrasse happy.
> While working on this, I noticed a few other problems. One is that the
> query doesn't have an ORDER BY clause, which it really should, or the
> output won't be stable. And the other is that I think we should be
> testing against the regression database, not the postgres database,
> because it's got a bunch of user tables in it, not just
> pg_largeobject.
Both of those sound like "d'oh" observations to me. +1
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-07-30 02:37:02 | Re: Inconvenience of pg_read_binary_file() |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-07-30 00:08:02 | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |