Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri <nehakhat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> With this, if an installcheck is done, that might also have been done with >> the expectation that the output will be in 'escape' format. In that case, >> how much is it justified to hard code the format for regression database? >> However, I agree that there are not many bytea outputs in the current >> regression suite
> I don't understand this. People don't run the regression tests to get > the output. They run the regression tests to see whether they pass. > While it may not be possible to make them pass with arbitrarily-crazy > settings, that's not a reason not to patch up the cases we can handle > sanely. I think the question that has to be settled to move this forward is whether we're content with hard-wiring something for bytea_output (as in Jeff's installcheck_bytea_fix_2.patch, which I concur with Peter is superior to installcheck_bytea_fix_1.patch), or whether we want to hold out for a more flexible solution, probably about like what I sketched in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30246.1487202663%40sss.pgh.pa.us I think the more flexible solution is definitely a desirable place to get to, but somehow I doubt it's going to happen for v10. Meanwhile the question is whether adding more hard-wired behavior in pg_regress is desirable or not. I tend to vote with Andres that it's not worth the trouble, but considering that it's only a 2-line change, I won't stand in the way if some other committer is convinced this is an improvement. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
