From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Niyas Sait <niyas(dot)sait(at)linaro(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support |
Date: | 2022-08-29 23:48:38 |
Message-ID: | Yw1QVptf33FMZw6n@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:12:20AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have noticed that yesterday, but cannot think much about it. This
> basically changes the position of "<!--c1-->" for the first record,
> leaving the second one untouched:
> <!--c1--><?pi arg?><![CDATA[&ent1]]>
> <?pi arg?><![CDATA[&ent1]]><!--c1-->
>
> I am not used to xmltable(), but I wonder if there is something in one
> of these support functions in xml.c that gets influenced by the
> randomization. That sounds a bit hairy as make check passed in
> bowerbird, and I have noticed at least two other Windows hosts running
> TAP that passed. Or that's just something with libxml itself.
This is amazing. The issue has showed up a second time in a row in
bowerbird, as of:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=bowerbird&dt=2022-08-29%2013%3A30%3A32
I don't know what to think about ASLR that manipulates the comment in
this XML object under VS 2017 (perhaps a compiler issue?), but it
should be possible to go back to green simply by removing "<!--c1-->"
from the input string. Creating an extra output pattern here would be
very costly, as xml_2.out and xml.out have outputs for --with-libxml.
Would people object if I do that for now?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-29 23:58:31 | Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-08-29 23:07:57 | Re: identifying the backend that owns a temporary schema |