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]
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster