Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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