Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Date
Msg-id 139504.1659140555@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Inconvenience of pg_read_binary_file()