Hello
multicheck for triggers are supported now
CHECK TRIGGER ALL;
CHECK TRIGGER ALL IN SCHEMA xxx FOR ROLE yyy;
Regards
Pavel Stehule
check_function-2012-03-07-2.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar mar 06 03:43:06 -0300 2012:
Hello
* I refreshed regress tests and appended tests for multi lines query
* There are enhanced checking of SELECT INTO statement
* I fixed showing details and hints
Oh, I forgot to remove the do_tup_output_slot()
2012/3/6 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar mar 06 10:44:09 -0300 2012:
2012/3/6 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar mar 06 03:43:06 -0300 2012:
Hello
* I refreshed regress tests
Hello
there is new version
* fixed small formatting issues related to drop SPI call
* long functions was divided
* CREATE TRIGGER ALL ON table support
Regards
Pavel
check_function-2012-03-06-3.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hello
I found one small issue where Query was not forwarded when trigger
record was broken. I had to append context forwarding.
Regards
Pavel
2012/3/6 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
there is new version
* fixed small formatting issues related to drop SPI call
* long
Hello
2012/3/5 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of dom mar 04 16:33:08 -0300 2012:
Hello
2012/3/4 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
CHECK FUNCTION
-
small fix of CheckFunctionById function
Regards
p.s. Alvaro, please, send your patch and I'll merge it
/*
* Connect to SPI manager
*/
if (SPI_connect() != SPI_OK_CONNECT)
elog(ERROR, SPI_connect failed);
values[0] = ObjectIdGetDatum(funcOid);
values[1] =
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun mar 05 13:02:50 -0300 2012:
small fix of CheckFunctionById function
Regards
p.s. Alvaro, please, send your patch and I'll merge it
Here it is, with your changes already merged. I also added back the
new reference doc files which were dropped
Hello
* I refreshed regress tests and appended tests for multi lines query
* There are enhanced checking of SELECT INTO statement
* I fixed showing details and hints
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2012/3/5 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun mar 05
Hello
2012/3/4 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of sáb mar 03 17:56:23 -0300 2012:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of sáb mar 03 16:54:19 -0300 2012:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:25:52 -0300 2012:
3. THE
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of dom mar 04 16:33:08 -0300 2012:
Hello
2012/3/4 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
CHECK FUNCTION
-
In function: 'f()'
error:42P01:2:sentencia SQL:no existe
On 03/03/2012 02:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
FUNCTION?
check function f1();
CHECK FUNCTION
-
In function: 'f1()'
Excerpts from Petr Jelínek's message of sáb mar 03 10:26:04 -0300 2012:
On 03/03/2012 02:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
FUNCTION?
check function f1();
CHECK FUNCTION
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:25:52 -0300 2012:
Hello
It wasn't all that difficult -- see below. While at this, I have a
question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
FUNCTION?
TupleDescr is created by language creator. This ensure
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of sáb mar 03 16:54:19 -0300 2012:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:25:52 -0300 2012:
3. THE ARE NOT CARET - this is really important
I am not sure about the caret thingy -- mainly because I don't think it
works all that well. I
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of sáb mar 03 17:56:23 -0300 2012:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of sáb mar 03 16:54:19 -0300 2012:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:25:52 -0300 2012:
3. THE ARE NOT CARET - this is really important
I am not sure
Hello
2012/3/1 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Why does CollectCheckedFunctions skip trigger functions? My only guess
is that at one point the checker was not supposed to know how to check
them, and a later version learned about it and this bit wasn't updated;
but maybe there's
2012/3/2 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
I've cleaned up the backend code a bit -- see attached. More yet to go
through; I'm mainly sending it out for you (and everyone, really) to
give your opinion on my changes so far.
(I split out the plpgsql checker for the time being into a
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of vie mar 02 05:29:26 -0300 2012:
you cannot to check trigger function without assigned relation -
TupleDescription should be assigned to NEW and OLD variables.
Oh, I see, that makes sense.
After mulling over this a bit, I'm dubious about having two
Hello
2012/3/2 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of vie mar 02 05:29:26 -0300 2012:
you cannot to check trigger function without assigned relation -
TupleDescription should be assigned to NEW and OLD variables.
Oh, I see, that makes sense.
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar feb 28 16:30:58 -0300 2012:
Hello
Dne 28. února 2012 17:48 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
napsal(a):
I have a few comments about this patch:
I didn't like the fact that the checker calling infrastructure uses
SPI instead of
Hello
It wasn't all that difficult -- see below. While at this, I have a
question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
FUNCTION?
TupleDescr is created by language creator. This ensure exactly
expected format, because there are no possible registry check function
with
2012/3/3 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
It wasn't all that difficult -- see below. While at this, I have a
question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
FUNCTION?
TupleDescr is created by language creator. This ensure exactly
expected format, because
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:45:06 -0300 2012:
Without correct registration you cannot to call PL check function
directly simply. I don't thing so this is good price for removing a
few SPI lines. I don't understand why you don't like SPI.
I don't dislike SPI in
2012/3/3 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:45:06 -0300 2012:
Without correct registration you cannot to call PL check function
directly simply. I don't thing so this is good price for removing a
few SPI lines. I don't
Why does CollectCheckedFunctions skip trigger functions? My only guess
is that at one point the checker was not supposed to know how to check
them, and a later version learned about it and this bit wasn't updated;
but maybe there's another reason?
--
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
Hello
2012/2/28 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
In gram.y we have a new check_option_list nonterminal. This is mostly
identical to explain_option_list, except that the option args do not
take a NumericOnly (only opt_boolean_or_string and empty). I wonder if
it's really
I think the way we're passing down the options to the checker is a bit
of a mess. The way it is formulated, it seems to me that we'd need to
add support code in the core CheckFunction for each option we might want
to accept in the PL-specific checkers -- including what type of value
the option
Hello
2012/2/29 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
I think the way we're passing down the options to the checker is a bit
of a mess. The way it is formulated, it seems to me that we'd need to
add support code in the core CheckFunction for each option we might want
to accept in the
I have a few comments about this patch:
I didn't like the fact that the checker calling infrastructure uses
SPI instead of just a FunctionCallN to call the checker function. I
think this should be easily avoidable.
Second, I see that functioncmds.c gets a lot into trigger internals just
to be
Hello
Dne 28. února 2012 17:48 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com napsal(a):
I have a few comments about this patch:
I didn't like the fact that the checker calling infrastructure uses
SPI instead of just a FunctionCallN to call the checker function. I
think this should be easily
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar feb 28 16:30:58 -0300 2012:
I refreshed patch for current git repository.
Thanks, I'll have a look.
Oh, another thing -- you shouldn't patch the 1.0 version of the plpgsql
extension. Rather I think you should produce a 1.1 version.
--
Álvaro
2012/2/28 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar feb 28 16:30:58 -0300 2012:
I refreshed patch for current git repository.
Thanks, I'll have a look.
Oh, another thing -- you shouldn't patch the 1.0 version of the plpgsql
extension. Rather
In gram.y we have a new check_option_list nonterminal. This is mostly
identical to explain_option_list, except that the option args do not
take a NumericOnly (only opt_boolean_or_string and empty). I wonder if
it's really worthwhile having a bunch of separate productions for this;
how about we
2012/2/28 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
In gram.y we have a new check_option_list nonterminal. This is mostly
identical to explain_option_list, except that the option args do not
take a NumericOnly (only opt_boolean_or_string and empty). I wonder if
it's really worthwhile
Pavel Stehule wrote:
here is new version of CHECK FUNCTION patch
I changed implementation of interface:
* checked functions returns table instead raising exceptions - it
necessary for describing more issues inside one function - and it
allow to use better structured data then
Pavel Stehule wrote:
here is new version of CHECK FUNCTION patch
I won't be able to review that one because I'll be in
California from Jan 6 to Jan 29.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Hello all
here is new version of CHECK FUNCTION patch
I changed implementation of interface:
* checked functions returns table instead raising exceptions - it
necessary for describing more issues inside one function - and it
allow to use better structured data then ExceptionData
postgres=#
On 12/17/2011 04:00 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I use it for checking of my most large plpgsql project - it is about
300KB plpgsql procedures - but this code is not free - and this module
helps to find lot of bugs.
Great. If you continue to check against that regularly, that makes me
feel
2011/12/19 Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 12/17/2011 04:00 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I use it for checking of my most large plpgsql project - it is about
300KB plpgsql procedures - but this code is not free - and this module
helps to find lot of bugs.
Great. If you continue to check
2011/12/16 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
one small update - better emulation of environment for security
definer functions
Patch applies and compiles fine, core functionality works fine.
I found a little bug:
In backend/commands/functioncmds.c,
function
2011/12/16 Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com:
I just poked at this a bit myself to see how the patch looked. There's just
over 4000 lines in the diff. Even though 1/4 of that is tests, which is
itself encouraging, that's still a good sized feature. The rate at which
code here has still been
Hello
You have the option fatal_errors for the checker function, but you
special case it in CheckFunction(CheckFunctionStmt *stmt) and turn
errors to warnings if it is not set.
Wouldn't it be better to have the checker function ereport a WARNING
or an ERROR depending on the setting?
Pavel Stehule wrote:
one small update - better emulation of environment for security
definer functions
Patch applies and compiles fine, core functionality works fine.
I found a little bug:
In backend/commands/functioncmds.c,
function CheckFunction(CheckFunctionStmt *stmt),
while you perform
I just poked at this a bit myself to see how the patch looked. There's
just over 4000 lines in the diff. Even though 1/4 of that is tests,
which is itself encouraging, that's still a good sized feature. The
rate at which code here has still been changing regularly here has me
nervous about
Pavel Stehule wrote:
so removed quite option
and removed multiple check regression tests also - there is missing
explicit order of function checking, so regress tests can fail :(
There seems to be a problem with the SET clause of CREATE FUNCTION:
ftest=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION a(integer)
Hello
2011/12/15 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
so removed quite option
and removed multiple check regression tests also - there is missing
explicit order of function checking, so regress tests can fail :(
There seems to be a problem with the SET clause of CREATE
Hello
one small update - better emulation of environment for security
definer functions
Regards
Pavel
check_function-2011-12-15-2.diff.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
changes:
* fixed warnings
* support for options - actually only two options are supported -
quite and fatal_errors
these options are +/- useful - main reason for their existence is
testing of support of options - processing on CHECK ... stmt side and
processing on
Hello
so removed quite option
and removed multiple check regression tests also - there is missing
explicit order of function checking, so regress tests can fail :(
Regards
Pavel
2011/12/14 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
changes:
* fixed warnings
* support for
Pavel Stehule wrote:
One thing I forgot to mention:
I thought there was a consensus to add a WITH() or OPTIONS() clause
to pass options to the checker function:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12568.1322669...@sss.pgh.pa.us
I think this should be there so that the API does not have
2011/12/13 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
One thing I forgot to mention:
I thought there was a consensus to add a WITH() or OPTIONS() clause
to pass options to the checker function:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12568.1322669...@sss.pgh.pa.us
I think
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2011/12/13 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Either that, or couldn't you pass an option List as data type internal?
this is question - internal is most simply solution, but then we
cannot to call check function directly
Yeah, one of the
2011/12/13 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2011/12/13 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Either that, or couldn't you pass an option List as data type internal?
this is question - internal is most simply solution, but then we
cannot to call check
Hello
2011/12/12 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
there is merged patch
Works fine, except that there are still missing const qualifiers
in copyfuncs.c and equalfuncs.c that lead to compiler warnings.
One thing I forgot to mention:
I thought there was a consensus
Pavel Stehule wrote:
there is merged patch
Works fine, except that there are still missing const qualifiers
in copyfuncs.c and equalfuncs.c that lead to compiler warnings.
One thing I forgot to mention:
I thought there was a consensus to add a WITH() or OPTIONS() clause
to pass options to the
hello
2011/12/12 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
there is merged patch
Works fine, except that there are still missing const qualifiers
in copyfuncs.c and equalfuncs.c that lead to compiler warnings.
One thing I forgot to mention:
I thought there was a consensus
Pavel Stehule wrote:
updated version
changes:
* CHECK FUNCTION ALL; is enabled - in this case functions from
pg_catalog schema are ignored
I looked on parser, and I didn't other changes there - IN SCHEMA, FOR
ROLE are used more time there, so our usage will be consistent
a small
Pavel Stehule wrote:
there is fixed version
Here is my attempt at a doc patch.
Could you add it to your patch so that all is in a single patch?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
check_function_docs.patch
Description: check_function_docs.patch
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hello
2011/12/9 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
there is fixed version
Here is my attempt at a doc patch.
Could you add it to your patch so that all is in a single patch?
there is merged patch
Thank you
Regards
Pavel
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
Pavel Stehule wrote:
there is a updated patch.
it support multi check, options and custom check functions are not
supported yet. I don't plan to implement custom check functions in
this round - I has not any example of usage - but we have agreement on
syntax and behave, so this should not
2011/12/7 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
there is a updated patch.
it support multi check, options and custom check functions are not
supported yet. I don't plan to implement custom check functions in
this round - I has not any example of usage - but we have
Pavel Stehule wrote:
The syntax error messages are still inadequate; all I can get is
'syntax error at or near %s'. They should be more detailed.
this system is based on error messages that generates a plpgsql engine
or bison engine. I can correct only a few percent from these messages
:(
Pavel Stehule wrote:
My attempt at a syntax that could also cover Peter's wish for multiple
checker functions:
CHECK FUNCTION { func(args) | ALL [IN SCHEMA schema] [FOR ROLE user] }
[ USING check_function ] OPTIONS (optname optarg [, ...])
check_function should be related to one language,
On ons, 2011-11-30 at 10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think the important point here is that we need to support more than
one level of validation, and that the higher levels can't really be
applied by default in CREATE FUNCTION because they may fail on perfectly
valid code.
How would this work
Tom Lane wrote:
Do I understand right that the reason why the check function is
different from the validator function is that it would be more
difficult
to add the checks to the validator function?
Is that a good enough argument? From a user's perspective it is
difficult to see why some
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2011-11-30 at 10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think the important point here is that we need to support more than
one level of validation, and that the higher levels can't really be
applied by default in CREATE FUNCTION because they may fail on
Hello
Also, what kind of report does this generate?
Good question. I suspect what Pavel has now will raise errors, but that
doesn't scale very nicely to checking more than one function, or even to
finding more than one bug in a single function.
I stop on first error now. Reason is reuse
Hello
My attempt at a syntax that could also cover Peter's wish for multiple
checker functions:
CHECK FUNCTION { func(args) | ALL [IN SCHEMA schema] [FOR ROLE user] }
[ USING check_function ] OPTIONS (optname optarg [, ...])
check_function should be related to one language, so you have
2011/12/2 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
My attempt at a syntax that could also cover Peter's wish for multiple
checker functions:
CHECK FUNCTION { func(args) | ALL [IN SCHEMA schema] [FOR ROLE user] }
[ USING check_function ] OPTIONS (optname optarg [, ...])
some other
Pavel Stehule wrote:
updated patch:
* recheck compilation and initdb
* working routines moved to pl_exec.c
* add entry to catalog.sgml about lanchecker field
* add node's utils
Documentation:
--
This patch has no documentation for CHECK FUNCTION or CHECK TRIGGER.
The last
Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at writes:
Do I understand right that the reason why the check function is
different from the validator function is that it would be more difficult
to add the checks to the validator function?
Is that a good enough argument? From a user's perspective it is
Hello
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION t(i integer) RETURNS integer
LANGUAGE plpgsql STRICT AS
$$DECLARE j integer;
BEGIN
IF i=1 THEN
FOR I IN 1..4 BY -1 LOOP
RAISE NOTICE '%', i;
END LOOP;
RETURN -1;
ELSE
RETURN 2*i;
END IF;
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
On the whole, it might not be a bad idea to have two allowed signatures
for the validator function, rather than inventing an additional column
in pg_language. But the fundamental point IMHO is that there needs to
be a
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié nov 30 12:53:42 -0300 2011:
A bigger issue is that once you think about more than one kind of check,
it becomes apparent that we might need some user-specifiable options to
control which checks are applied. And I see no provision for that here.
This
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
On the whole, it might not be a bad idea to have two allowed signatures
for the validator function, rather than inventing an additional column
in pg_language. But the fundamental
2011/11/30 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié nov 30 12:53:42 -0300 2011:
A bigger issue is that once you think about more than one kind of check,
it becomes apparent that we might need some user-specifiable options to
control which checks are
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2011/11/30 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
How about
CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c)
this syntax is relative consistent with EXPLAIN, is it ok for all?
It seems pretty awkward to me, particularly putting the options
2011/11/30 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2011/11/30 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
How about
CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c)
this syntax is relative consistent with EXPLAIN, is it ok for all?
It seems pretty awkward
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2011/11/30 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
It seems pretty awkward to me, particularly putting the options before
the second keyword of the command --- that could bite us if we ever want
some other flavors of CHECK command. I prefer Robert's
Hello
I rechecked a possibility to use a validator function together with
checker function.
The main issue is a different interface of both functions. Validator
needs just function oid and uses global variable
check_function_bodies. Checker function needs function oid and
relation oid (possible
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I rechecked a possibility to use a validator function together with
checker function.
The main issue is a different interface of both functions. Validator
needs just function oid and uses global variable
check_function_bodies. Checker function
Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am sending updated patch, that implements a CHECK FUNCTION and CHECK
TRIGGER statements.
This patch is significantly redesigned to previous version (PL/pgSQL
part) - it is more readable, more accurate. There are new regress
tests.
Please, can some English native
Hello
2011/11/29 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am sending updated patch, that implements a CHECK FUNCTION and CHECK
TRIGGER statements.
This patch is significantly redesigned to previous version (PL/pgSQL
part) - it is more readable, more accurate. There are
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2011/11/29 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
There are a lot of small changes to pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c, are they all
necessary? For example, why was copy_plpgsql_datum renamed to
plpgsql_copy_datum?
yes, it's necessary - a implementation
2011/11/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2011/11/29 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
There are a lot of small changes to pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c, are they all
necessary? For example, why was copy_plpgsql_datum renamed to
plpgsql_copy_datum?
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar nov 29 14:37:24 -0300 2011:
2011/11/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
I don't think renaming is necessary. plpgsql is a standalone shared
library and so its symbols don't matter to anybody but itself.
Possibly a larger question, though, is
2011/11/29 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
updated patch:
* recheck compilation and initdb
* working routines moved to pl_exec.c
* add entry to catalog.sgml about lanchecker field
* add node's utils
+ pg_dump support
Pavel
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2011/11/29 Albe Laurenz
2011/11/22 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
I tried to look at the patch, but it does not apply to current master,
probably because of bit rot.
Can you submit an updated version?
The patch contains docs and regression tests and is context diff.
I'll mark it waiting for author.
please
89 matches
Mail list logo
