Re: Automatic testing of patches in commit fest

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Automatic testing of patches in commit fest
Date: 2017-09-12 23:52:31
Message-ID: 31355.1505260351@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Can you clarify what went wrong for you on that one? I went to rebase it,
>>> but I end up with the identical patch except for a few line-numbering
>>> variations.

> It seems to be a legitimate complaint. The rejected hunk is trying to
> replace this line:
> ! return exec_simple_check_node((Node *) ((ArrayCoerceExpr
> *) node)->arg);

> But you removed exec_simple_check_node in
> 00418c61244138bd8ac2de58076a1d0dd4f539f3, so this 02 patch needs to be
> rebased.

Hm. My bad I guess --- apparently, the copy I had of this patch was
already rebased over that, but I'd not reposted it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2017-09-12 23:54:15 Re: Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)
Previous Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2017-09-12 23:49:02 Re: Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)