| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic testing of patches in commit fest |
| Date: | 2017-09-12 23:52:31 |
| Message-ID: | 31355.1505260351@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Can you clarify what went wrong for you on that one? I went to rebase it,
>>> but I end up with the identical patch except for a few line-numbering
>>> variations.
> It seems to be a legitimate complaint. The rejected hunk is trying to
> replace this line:
> ! return exec_simple_check_node((Node *) ((ArrayCoerceExpr
> *) node)->arg);
> But you removed exec_simple_check_node in
> 00418c61244138bd8ac2de58076a1d0dd4f539f3, so this 02 patch needs to be
> rebased.
Hm. My bad I guess --- apparently, the copy I had of this patch was
already rebased over that, but I'd not reposted it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-09-12 23:54:15 | Re: Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers) |
| Previous Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2017-09-12 23:49:02 | Re: Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers) |