So bug #1 patch should be applied, and not bug #2 part?
> Hi all,
>
> I found a few bugs this afternoon - Patch attached. Patch was generated
> from current source and tested with the regression tests.
>
> ...
>
> ============== shutting down postmaster ==============
>
> ======================
> All 77 tests passed.
> ======================
>
> ...
>
> ----
>
> Bug #1: attribute name when column is type cast:
>
> Given the following table:
>
> test=# \d f
> Table "f"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------+---------+-----------
> i | integer |
> test | text |
>
> If I do the following:
>
> test=# insert into f values(1,'test');
> INSERT 139549 1
> test=# select i::int8,test from f;
> ?column? | test
> ----------+------
> 1 | test
> (1 row)
>
> It doesn't make much sense that the first column should be called
> '?column?'.
>
> The patch results in the output appearing like this:
>
> test=# select i::int8,test from f;
> i | test
> ---+------
> 1 | test
> (1 row)
>
> ----------
>
> Bug #2
>
> Found this while testing the first patch. As it happens I only have one
> box handy and it was running PG already. I changed the default port to
> 9999. When I executed bin/psql (the freshly built psql) it connected to my
> production postmaster on port 5432.
>
> The patch sets the configured port to that defined in pg_config.h.
>
> Gavin
Content-Description:
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
