On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I had not intended to back-patch, since those changes were just cosmetic,
> > but it might be the best way to preserve the XversionUpgrade tests.
>
> After closer study, it seems like the least painful answer is:
>
> 1. In HEAD, reve
I wrote:
> I had not intended to back-patch, since those changes were just cosmetic,
> but it might be the best way to preserve the XversionUpgrade tests.
After closer study, it seems like the least painful answer is:
1. In HEAD, revert the renaming of int44in/int44out to
city_budget_in/_out; the
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-02-27 13:36:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Does it seem practical to adjust TestUpgradeXversion.pm to cope with
>> this change? An alternative answer is to put back C-language stubs
>> in regress.c for the removed functions, but that seems a bit grotty.
> Could we j
Hi,
On 2018-02-27 13:36:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I just committed some regression test cleanup that removed or renamed
> a couple of C-language functions in regress.so. I see that crake is
> now failing XversionUpgrade tests, and although I can't see the details,
> I bet the problem is from tr
I just committed some regression test cleanup that removed or renamed
a couple of C-language functions in regress.so. I see that crake is
now failing XversionUpgrade tests, and although I can't see the details,
I bet the problem is from trying to load CREATE FUNCTION commands from
the old regressi
