> The line number offsets are expected when applying to v10, but it looks
> like you failed to transfer the attachment cleanly ...

Yes, it was some mistake on our side.

It looks that patch helps us. Tom, thank you!
I'm still testing it though, just in case.

What are PostgreSQL schedule on releasing fixes like this? Can I expect
that it will be in 10.2 and when can I expect 10.2, approximately of course?


Dmitry Shalashov, relap.io & surfingbird.ru

2017-11-23 20:00 GMT+03:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> Dmitry Shalashov <skau...@gmail.com> writes:
> > We tried to apply the patch on 10.1 source, but something is wrong it
> seems:
> > patch -p1 < ../1.patch
> > (Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
> > patching file src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c
> > (Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
> > patching file src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c
> > Hunk #1 succeeded at 3270 (offset -91 lines).
> > Hunk #2 succeeded at 3304 (offset -91 lines).
> > Hunk #3 succeeded at 3313 (offset -91 lines).
> > Hunk #4 succeeded at 3393 (offset -91 lines).
> > patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
> > Hunk #5 succeeded at 3570 with fuzz 1 (offset -91 lines).
>
> The line number offsets are expected when applying to v10, but it looks
> like you failed to transfer the attachment cleanly ... there were
> certainly not CRs in it when I mailed it.  The output on v10
> should just look like
>
> patching file src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c
> patching file src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 3270 (offset -91 lines).
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 3304 (offset -91 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 3313 (offset -91 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 3393 (offset -91 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 3570 (offset -91 lines).
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>

Reply via email to