Sorry, please disregard. Was means for a Japanese FAQ update.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Patch applied. Thanks.
>
> ---
>
>
> Jeremy Drake wrote
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Jeremy Drake wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > I think we could do without the Moby Dick extract too ...
> >
> > I am open to
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just tried using the \lo_import command in a regression test, and I
> > think I figured out why this will not work:
> > ...
> > Yes, that's the large object OID in the output there, and it is different
> > each r
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I suggest that instead of testing the server-side lo_import/lo_export
> > functions, perhaps you could test the psql equivalents and write and
> > read a file in psql's working directory.
> In the mean time, I w
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I think we could do without the Moby Dick extract too ...
>
> I am open to suggestions. I saw one suggestion that I use an image of an
> elephant, but I suspect that was tongue-in-cheek. I am not very fond of
>
Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just tried using the \lo_import command in a regression test, and I
> think I figured out why this will not work:
> ...
> Yes, that's the large object OID in the output there, and it is different
> each run (as I expect).
Right. I'd suggest temporarily
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I suggest that instead of testing the server-side lo_import/lo_export
> > functions, perhaps you could test the psql equivalents and write and
> > read a file in psql's working directory.
>
> I did not see any pr
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I put together a patch which adds a regression test for large objects,
> > hopefully attached to this message. I would like some critique of it, to
> > see if I have gone about it the right way. Also I would be h
Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I put together a patch which adds a regression test for large objects,
> hopefully attached to this message. I would like some critique of it, to
> see if I have gone about it the right way. Also I would be happy to hear
> any additional tests which shou
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 02:59, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> I am considering, and I think that in order to get a real test of the
> large objects, I would need to load data into a large object which would
> be sufficient to be loaded into more than one block (large object blocks
> were 1 or 2K IIRC)
Hi, Jeremy,
Jeremy Drake wrote:
> I am considering, and I think that in order to get a real test of the
> large objects, I would need to load data into a large object which would
> be sufficient to be loaded into more than one block (large object blocks
> were 1 or 2K IIRC) so that the block boun
Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed when I was working on a patch quite a while back that there are
> no regression tests for large object support.
Yeah, this is bad :-(
> I am considering, and I think that in order to get a real test of the
> large objects, I would need to load
I noticed when I was working on a patch quite a while back that there are
no regression tests for large object support. I know, large objects
are not the most sexy part of the code-base, and I think they tend to be
ignored/forgotten most of the time. Which IMHO is all the more reason
they should
Sorry if this gets through more than once, I seem to be having email
difficulties...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> I noticed when I was working on a patch quite a while back that there are
> no regression tests for large object support. I know, large objects
> are not the most sexy p
14 matches
Mail list logo
