On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:48 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-02-07 08:44:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Right, and it is getting changed. We are just printing the first 200
> > characters (by using SQL [1]) from the decoded tuple so what is shown
> > in the results is the initial 200 bytes.
>
> Ah, I knew I must have been missing something.
>
>
> > The complete decoded data after the patch is as follows:
>
> Hm. I think we should change the way the strings are shortened - otherwise we
> don't really verify much in that test. Perhaps we could just replace the long
> repetitive strings with something shorter in the output?
>
> E.g. using something like regexp_replace(data,
> '(1234567890|9876543210){200}', '\1{200}','g')
> inside the substr().
IMHO, in this particular case using regexp_replace as you explained
would be a good option as we will be verifying complete data instead
of just the first 200 characters.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
