Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | B3E86191-D692-4CBB-9387-13E1E15321AD@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Instead of a patch it might be easier to submit the new columns as a perl script or sed command. We do something like that to make merging pg_proc easier. greg On 8 Nov 2008, at 01:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David Rowley" <dgrowley@gmail.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 > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: