> 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?
2017-11-23 20:00 GMT+03:00 Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Dmitry Shalashov <skaurus@xxxxxxxxx> 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 The line number offsets are expected when applying to v10, but it looks
> (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).
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 #5 succeeded at 3570 (offset -91 lines).
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).
regards, tom lane
