On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
Works now, so that seems to have been fixed by the reverting of the patch. It might be a while before they all recover due to caching issues, but both of these work now for me, which seems to indcate the fix is the right one. > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4B577E9F.8000505%40dunslane.net/ It works with %40 for me now, so it might have been related - can you check if it is still an issue for you? It might be different in different browsers. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
