On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:30, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:34 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > On 2019-01-08 11:30:56 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > On 08/01/2019 00:56, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > A patch at [2] adds display of a table's access method to \d+ - but that > > > > means that running the tests with a different default table access > > > > method (e.g. using PGOPTIONS='-c default_table_access_method=...) > > > > there'll be a significant number of test failures, even though the test > > > > results did not meaningfully differ. > > > > > > For psql, a variable that hides the access method if it's the default. > > > > Yea, I think that seems the least contentious solution. Don't like it > > too much, but it seems better than the alternative. I wonder if we want > > one for multiple regression related issues, or whether one specifically > > about table AMs is more appropriate. I lean towards the latter. > > Are there any similar existing regression related issues? If no, then probably > the latter indeed makes more sense. > > > > > Similarly, if pg_dump starts to dump table access methods either > > > > unconditionally, or for all non-heap AMS, the pg_dump tests fail due to > > > > unimportant differences. > > > > > > For pg_dump, track and set the default_table_access_method setting > > > throughout the dump (similar to how default_with_oids was handled, I > > > believe). > > > > Yea, that's similar to that, and I think that makes sense. > > Yes, sounds like a reasonable approach, I can proceed with it.
Dmitry, I believe you have taken the pg_dump part only. If that's right, I can proceed with the psql part. Does that sound right ? > -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
