Thread: pg_regress: paths in largeobject test
Hi,
the largeobject test does this:
137 SELECT lo_export(loid, '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest.txt') <snip>
138
139 \lo_import 'results/lotest.txt'
140
141 \set newloid :LASTOID
142
143 -- just make sure \lo_export does not barf
144 \lo_export :newloid 'results/lotest2.txt'
I believe the results paths in line 139 and 144 are missing the
@abs_builddir@ qualifier.
The attached patch has been tested with "make check" and by running
pg_regress outside the PostgreSQL source tree, both on Solaris 11, x86.
-J
--
Jørgen Austvik, Software Engineering - QA
Sun Microsystems Database Technology Group
Index: src/test/regress/input/largeobject.source
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/test/regress/input/largeobject.source,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -r1.4 largeobject.source
*** src/test/regress/input/largeobject.source 3 Mar 2007 22:57:03 -0000 1.4
--- src/test/regress/input/largeobject.source 29 Nov 2007 11:55:07 -0000
***************
*** 136,147 ****
SELECT lo_export(loid, '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest.txt') FROM lotest_stash_values;
! \lo_import 'results/lotest.txt'
\set newloid :LASTOID
-- just make sure \lo_export does not barf
! \lo_export :newloid 'results/lotest2.txt'
-- This is a hack to test that export/import are reversible
-- This uses knowledge about the inner workings of large object mechanism
--- 136,147 ----
SELECT lo_export(loid, '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest.txt') FROM lotest_stash_values;
! \lo_import '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest.txt'
\set newloid :LASTOID
-- just make sure \lo_export does not barf
! \lo_export :newloid '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest2.txt'
-- This is a hack to test that export/import are reversible
-- This uses knowledge about the inner workings of large object mechanism
Index: src/test/regress/output/largeobject.source
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/test/regress/output/largeobject.source,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -r1.4 largeobject.source
*** src/test/regress/output/largeobject.source 3 Mar 2007 22:57:04 -0000 1.4
--- src/test/regress/output/largeobject.source 29 Nov 2007 11:55:07 -0000
***************
*** 251,260 ****
1
(1 row)
! \lo_import 'results/lotest.txt'
\set newloid :LASTOID
-- just make sure \lo_export does not barf
! \lo_export :newloid 'results/lotest2.txt'
-- This is a hack to test that export/import are reversible
-- This uses knowledge about the inner workings of large object mechanism
-- which should not be used outside it. This makes it a HACK
--- 251,260 ----
1
(1 row)
! \lo_import '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest.txt'
\set newloid :LASTOID
-- just make sure \lo_export does not barf
! \lo_export :newloid '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest2.txt'
-- This is a hack to test that export/import are reversible
-- This uses knowledge about the inner workings of large object mechanism
-- which should not be used outside it. This makes it a HACK
Index: src/test/regress/output/largeobject_1.source
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/test/regress/output/largeobject_1.source,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -c -r1.1 largeobject_1.source
*** src/test/regress/output/largeobject_1.source 10 Mar 2007 03:42:19 -0000 1.1
--- src/test/regress/output/largeobject_1.source 29 Nov 2007 11:55:07 -0000
***************
*** 251,260 ****
1
(1 row)
! \lo_import 'results/lotest.txt'
\set newloid :LASTOID
-- just make sure \lo_export does not barf
! \lo_export :newloid 'results/lotest2.txt'
-- This is a hack to test that export/import are reversible
-- This uses knowledge about the inner workings of large object mechanism
-- which should not be used outside it. This makes it a HACK
--- 251,260 ----
1
(1 row)
! \lo_import '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest.txt'
\set newloid :LASTOID
-- just make sure \lo_export does not barf
! \lo_export :newloid '@abs_builddir@/results/lotest2.txt'
-- This is a hack to test that export/import are reversible
-- This uses knowledge about the inner workings of large object mechanism
-- which should not be used outside it. This makes it a HACK
Attachment
Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway <Jorgen.Austvik@Sun.COM> writes:
> I believe the results paths in line 139 and 144 are missing the
> @abs_builddir@ qualifier.
I'd put it the other way around: likely we should get rid of the
one use of @abs_builddir@.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway <Jorgen.Austvik@Sun.COM> writes: >> I believe the results paths in line 139 and 144 are missing the >> @abs_builddir@ qualifier. > > I'd put it the other way around: likely we should get rid of the > one use of @abs_builddir@. He, he. Generally I prefer explicit over implicit (having the full paths make troubleshooting easier), but in this case you have the additional aspect of the lo_import operating relative to the client, while lo_export operates relative to the server. If you remove @abs_builddir@ on the first one, you might e.g. get problems like this: SELECT lo_export(loid, 'results/lotest.txt') FROM lotest_stash_values; ERROR: could not create server file "results/lotest.txt": No such file or directory -J -- Jørgen Austvik, Software Engineering - QA Sun Microsystems Database Technology Group
Attachment
Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway <Jorgen.Austvik@Sun.COM> writes: >>> I believe the results paths in line 139 and 144 are missing the >>> @abs_builddir@ qualifier. >> I'd put it the other way around: likely we should get rid of the >> one use of @abs_builddir@. > > He, he. > > Generally I prefer explicit over implicit (having the full paths make > troubleshooting easier), but in this case you have the additional aspect of > the lo_import operating relative to the client, while lo_export operates > relative to the server. I submit that the test is OK as it currently is. The lo_export() call is expanded by the server, which can be running anywhere -- hence the need to use an absolute path. Then we have \lo_import and \lo_export calls which are relative to the client. The client is already running in the regress builddir, so using relative paths works fine. If I try to run the client from another directory, it fails completely. Exactly what is the problem you are trying to fix? $ cd .. $ pwd /pgsql/build/00head/src/test $ regress/pg_regress largeobject (using postmaster on Unix socket, port 55432) ============== dropping database "regression" ============== DROP DATABASE ============== creating database "regression" ============== CREATE DATABASE ALTER DATABASE ============== running regression test queries ============== test largeobject ... /bin/sh: cannot open ./sql/largeobject.sql: No such file diff: ./expected/largeobject.out: No such file or directory diff: ./results/largeobject.out: No such file or directory diff command failed with status 512: diff -w "./expected/largeobject.out" "./results/largeobject.out" > "./results/largeobject.out.diff" -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre "The Postgresql hackers have what I call a "NASA space shot" mentality. Quite refreshing in a world of "weekend drag racer" developers." (Scott Marlowe)
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'd put it the other way around: likely we should get rid of the
>>> one use of @abs_builddir@.
>>
>> Generally I prefer explicit over implicit (having the full paths make
>> troubleshooting easier), but in this case you have the additional aspect of
>> the lo_import operating relative to the client, while lo_export operates
>> relative to the server.
> I submit that the test is OK as it currently is.
Yeah, I hadn't thought about the different-paths aspect at the time of
making the above comment; but given that, it is correct as-is.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: >> I submit that the test is OK as it currently is. > > Yeah, I hadn't thought about the different-paths aspect at the time of > making the above comment; but given that, it is correct as-is. OK, I still think it is easier to debug with the paths there explicitly, and I think the test will run just as well with them as without them, but it is no biggie. -J -- Jørgen Austvik, Software Engineering - QA Sun Microsystems Database Technology Group