On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:30, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:34 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2019-01-08 11:30:56 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On 08/01/2019 00:56, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > A patch at [2] adds display of a table's access method to \d+ - but that
> > > > means that running the tests with a different default table access
> > > > method (e.g. using PGOPTIONS='-c default_table_access_method=...)
> > > > there'll be a significant number of test failures, even though the test
> > > > results did not meaningfully differ.
> > >
> > > For psql, a variable that hides the access method if it's the default.
> >
> > Yea, I think that seems the least contentious solution. Don't like it
> > too much, but it seems better than the alternative. I wonder if we want
> > one for multiple regression related issues, or whether one specifically
> > about table AMs is more appropriate. I lean towards the latter.
>
> Are there any similar existing regression related issues? If no, then probably
> the latter indeed makes more sense.
>
> > > > Similarly, if pg_dump starts to dump table access methods either
> > > > unconditionally, or for all non-heap AMS, the pg_dump tests fail due to
> > > > unimportant differences.
> > >
> > > For pg_dump, track and set the default_table_access_method setting
> > > throughout the dump (similar to how default_with_oids was handled, I
> > > believe).
> >
> > Yea, that's similar to that, and I think that makes sense.
>
> Yes, sounds like a reasonable approach, I can proceed with it.
Dmitry, I believe you have taken the pg_dump part only. If that's
right, I can proceed with the psql part. Does that sound right ?
>
--
Thanks,
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
