From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies |
Date: | 2018-09-30 00:45:01 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=3YNXiJHaAifOn+kAZ0rFSZKTaFAiCYH99qSFCWXQodww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 7:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> > Attached is a rebase after 5ca00774.
>
> I notice that the cfbot thinks that *none* of your pending patches apply
> successfully. I tried this one locally and what I get is
>
> $ patch -p1 <~/libpq-host-ip-2.patch
> (Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
> patching file doc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml
> (Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
> patching file src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c
>
> as compared to the cfbot report, in which every hunk is rejected:
>
> === applying patch ./libpq-host-ip-2.patch
> Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me...
> The text leading up to this was:
> --------------------------
> |diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml
> |index 5e7931ba90..086172d4f0 100644
> |--- a/doc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml
> |+++ b/doc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml
> --------------------------
> Patching file doc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml using Plan A...
> Hunk #1 failed at 964.
> Hunk #2 failed at 994.
> 2 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to doc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml.rej
> Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
> The text leading up to this was:
> --------------------------
> |diff --git a/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c b/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c
> |index a8048ffad2..34025ba041 100644
> |--- a/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c
> |+++ b/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c
> --------------------------
> Patching file src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c using Plan A...
> Hunk #1 failed at 908.
> Hunk #2 failed at 930.
> Hunk #3 failed at 943.
> Hunk #4 failed at 974.
> Hunk #5 failed at 1004.
> Hunk #6 failed at 1095.
> Hunk #7 failed at 2098.
> Hunk #8 failed at 2158.
> Hunk #9 failed at 6138.
> 9 out of 9 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c.rej
> done
>
> So I'm speculating that the cfbot is using a version of patch(1) that
> doesn't have strip-trailing-CRs logic. Which bemuses me, because
> I thought they all did.
Huh. Yeah. I have now switched it over to GNU patch. It seems to be
happier with Fabien's patches so far, but will take a few minutes to
catch up with all of them.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-09-30 02:36:18 | Re: [HACKERS] kqueue |
Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-09-29 23:38:46 | Re: Odd 9.4, 9.3 buildfarm failure on s390x |