Excerpts from Kyotaro HORIGUCHI's message of mar jul 17 05:01:10 -0400 2012:
> > I think that's probably too much engineering for something that doesn't > > really warrant it. A real solution to this problem could be to create > > yet another new test file containing just this function definition and > > the query that calls it, and have one expected file for each encoding; > > but that's too much work and too many files, I'm afraid. > > I agree completely. The balance between the additional complexity > of regress and the what we would get from the complexity... I had to remove both that test and the one about the 0x80, because it wasn't working for me in either SQL_ASCII or Latin1, I forget which. I'm not sure I understand the reason for the failure -- I was getting a false result instead of true, which was unexpected. Maybe there's a trivial explanation for this .. or maybe it really is broken. In any case, maybe it'd be a good idea to have more tests related to encodings, if we can write them in some reasonable manner. But only in HEAD, I guess, because having to backpatch stuff and test every branch in at least three encodings is just too annoying. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
