On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > Yes. We can infer that. It makes it a whole lot easier to fix > something with better bug repors than that, of course, as I'm sure you > (Robert in this case, not Stephen) are generally aware of. > > I've reverted a patch that was applied a few days ago that dealt with > how URLs are parsed, and I think that's the one that's responsible. > But it would be good to have an actual example of what didn't work, > because the links i tried all worked...
Hmm. Sorry for the lack of detail. I assumed the problem was obvious and widespread because I clicked on the first link I saw in the Todo and it didn't work. But after clicking a bunch more links from the Todo, I only found three that fail. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01340.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01831.php http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4B577E9F.8000505%40dunslane.net/ That last one works if I change %40 to @, so that one might be a wiki problem rather than an archives problem. In fact, for all I know the other two might have been broken all along too; I'm just assuming they used to work. Sorry for going overboard, ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
