Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies
Date: 2018-08-24 19:25:31
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavan Deolasee 2018-08-24 19:26:17 Re: Accidental removal of a file causing various problems
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2018-08-24 19:10:02 Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)