Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David Rowley" <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "'Hitoshi Harada'" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, "'Vladimir Sitnikov'" <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance
Date: 2008-11-08 18:36:50
Message-ID: 19447.1226169410@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David Rowley" <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.h
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 106.
> 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.h.rej

I imagine you'll find that "hunk #4" covers the entire DATA() body of
the file :-(. It can't possibly apply cleanly if anyone's added or
altered pg_proc entries since the patch was made.

What you'd need to do is manually insert proiswfunc = 'f' entries in
all the existing DATA lines (this is usually not too hard with sed or
an emacs macro), then add whatever new functions the patch defines.
Even figuring out the latter from the patch representation can be a
serious PITA, since they'll be a few lines out of a multi-thousand-line
failed diff hunk.

I'm not sure if Hitoshi is in a position to submit the pg_proc changes
as two separate diffs --- one to add the new column and a separate one
to add in the new functions --- but it'd be a lot easier to deal with
merge issues if he could.

(Now I'll sit back and wait for some fanboy to claim that
$his_favorite_scm could solve this automatically ...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2008-11-08 18:46:58 Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2008-11-08 18:20:05 Re: auto_explain contrib moudle