Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sep 4, 2006, at 9:41 , Tom Lane wrote: > >> This patch fails to apply --- looks like whitespace got mangled in > >> transit. Please resend as an attachment. > > > Please let me know if you have any problems with this one. > > Ah, that one works --- applied. A few comments: > > * You worried about the "tmask" coding in your original message, but > I think that's OK as-is. The point of that code, IIUC, is to reject > multiple specifications of the same field type, eg '1 day 2 days'. > If we changed it then we'd reject '1.5 month 2 days', whereas I think > least surprise would dictate adding the components to give 1 month > 17 days. > > * AFAICT the ecpg regression tests are not affected by this change. > > * You mentioned being unable to get the ecpg tests to run on your > machine. I'm sure Michael and Joachim would like the details. The > ecpg regression tests are pretty new and some portability problems > are to be expected, but they seem to be passing on all the machines > Michael and Joachim and I have access to.
When I tried the ecpg regression tests it complained there was no results/ directory. I created one and it worked. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly