From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mario González Troncoso <gonzalemario(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: New commitfest app release on August 19th |
Date: | 2025-10-08 16:13:54 |
Message-ID: | 202510081607.x7ftlr6fb6lt@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
We just witnessed something weird with a patch that's perhaps a bug in
the workflow for detecting attachments. Patch in question was
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5972/
1. patch was in CF19-2
2. patch needed rebase.
3. Mario sent a new mail with rebased git-format-patch to the thread
4. patch continued to need rebase. In fact, it appeared as if the thread
info was not updated at all.
5. Mario moved the CF item to CF19-3
6. Nothing appeared to change, i.e. the thread display said that the
last email was from Peter, ignoring the new email.
7. I detached the thread from the CF item, then attached the thread
again. This time it showed both messages, but the attachment list
continued to show only the old one, ignoring the new patch.
Any thoughts? One idea is to delete the CF item and create it afresh :-)
I *suspect* that the thread-processor ignored the attachment because of
CF19-2 being dead, but had already imported the email message; and then
when the patch was moved to CF19-3, the new email was not processed
again so the attachment was again not seen. Does that make sense?
Thanks!
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Postgres is bloatware by design: it was built to house
PhD theses." (Joey Hellerstein, SIGMOD annual conference 2002)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-10-08 16:17:50 | Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value? |
Previous Message | Fabrice Chapuis | 2025-10-08 15:35:06 | Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots |