Re: Missing [NO] INDENT flag in XMLSerialize backward parsing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Missing [NO] INDENT flag in XMLSerialize backward parsing
Date
Msg-id 4DCB0B25-F6E2-4918-AB35-1C2995487F23@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Missing [NO] INDENT flag in XMLSerialize backward parsing  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Missing [NO] INDENT flag in XMLSerialize backward parsing
Re: Missing [NO] INDENT flag in XMLSerialize backward parsing
List pgsql-hackers


> On Feb 21, 2025, at 4:55 AM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 04:36:07AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> The fix has broken cross version upgrade test. Maybe we need to filter out
>> NO INDENT in releases prior to 16 in AdjustUpgrade.pm?s
>
> Yes, I was just looking at that.  The regex I am finishing with in
> AdjustUpgrade.pm is something like that, which is enough to discard
> the NO INDENT clause in an XMLSERIALIZE:
> --- src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/AdjustUpgrade.pm
> +++ src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/AdjustUpgrade
> @@ -628,6 +628,12 @@ sub adjust_new_dumpfile
>                        \s+FUNCTION\s2\s\(text,\stext\)\spublic\.part_hashtext_length\(text,bigint\);} {}mxg;
>    }
>
> +    # pre-v16 dumps do not know about XMLSERIALIZE(NO INDENT).
> +    if ($old_version < 16)
> +    {
> +        $dump =~ s/XMLSERIALIZE\((.*)? NO INDENT\)/XMLSERIALIZE\($1\)/mg;
> +    }
>
> This needs to be applied in adjust_new_dumpfile() so as the comparison
> with the old dump will be stable, is that right?

I think so. Looks good to me

Cheers

Andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_recvlogical requires -d but not described on the documentation