Re: bytea_output vs make installcheck

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, neha khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: bytea_output vs make installcheck
Date: 2017-02-15 23:32:50
Message-ID: 20170215233250.zqwmovwl36nlxqsj@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-02-15 18:30:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we tried to lock that down it'd be counterproductive for the reason
> Andres mentions: sometimes you *want* to see what you get for other
> settings.

We could kinda address that by doing it in a separate file early in the
schedule, which could just be commented out when doing something like
this. But I'm still unconvinced it's worth caring.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2017-02-15 23:43:58 Re: Logical replication existing data copy
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-02-15 23:30:30 Re: bytea_output vs make installcheck