Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm failures in ECPG-Check

2006-10-04 Thread Michael Meskes
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:54:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Looks like blow-back from the recent change in default GUC parameters. > > However, I think "update the expected output" is the wrong answer, I completely agree and thus changed this example to only show variable settings of variable the

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm failures in ECPG-Check

2006-10-03 Thread Tom Lane
Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It looks like something broke the ECPG-Check recently. A number of > buildfarm members are failing. Looks like blow-back from the recent change in default GUC parameters. However, I think "update the expected output" is the wrong answer, because what we