Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?
Date: 2018-01-06 21:11:15
Message-ID: 26831.1515273075@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Alexander, what is the process you're using to create the patch? I've heard someone (maybe Tom Lane?) say that he sometimes uses "patch" directly instead of "git" to create the patch, with better results. I forget the exact command.

Nah, you've got that the other way 'round. "patch" is not for creating
patches, it's for applying them. I've found, and some other people seem
to agree, that "patch" is more robust at applying patches than "git apply"
is. You might try this for a patch created with "git diff":

patch -p1 <patchfile

Be sure to cd to the top of the source tree first. Also, you can do

patch --dry -p1 <patchfile

if you just want to see whether it will complain without messing up
your tree.

(I gather from the messages it prints that the Patch Tester uses
"patch" not "git apply", so probably this patch would fail anyway.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2018-01-06 21:11:54 Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2018-01-06 21:02:23 Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL