Hi Marc,
>
> > I think I'm telling you what you already know, but there are lots
> of names
> > missing from that list (myself included), so that process isn't
> going to
> > work.
>
Me too. Maybe some improvement in the routine.
> When you submit'd your patch, where did you submit this to? As I
> said,
> this list is of all those that submit'd patches to pgsql-patches
> itself,
> not any of the other lists ... if you did send it to pgsql-patches,
> please
> let me know the URL for the message, so that I can see what it was
> overlooked, and see if I can't improve the 'search' ...
>
You just consider the plain text attachments. What about the encoded
attachments [1] and the gziped [2] ones?
IMO you need to filter out all sorts of attachments that could be
possible (grep in the 'Content-Type:' could solve this) then choose the
kind of attachments accepted as 'patches'.
So using this approach and yours (grep plain text attachments) can lead
to a reasonable result.
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-05/msg00377.php
[2] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-01/msg00217.php
=====
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
euler[at]yahoo_com_br
__________________________________________________
Converse com seus amigos em tempo real com o Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.download.yahoo.com/messenger/
