Re: Identifying no-op length coercions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Identifying no-op length coercions
Date
Msg-id BANLkTim8Ofi8jfLUCVQJdFXpoUVAxbcpwQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Identifying no-op length coercions  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Identifying no-op length coercions
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:57:13PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> > Sounds good. ?Updated patch attached, incorporating your ideas. ?Before applying
>> > it, run this command to update the uninvolved pg_proc.h DATA entries:
>> > ?perl -pi -e 's/PGUID(\s+\d+){4}/$& 0/' src/include/catalog/pg_proc.h
>>
>> This doesn't quite apply any more.  I think the pgindent run broke it slightly.
>
> Hmm, I just get two one-line offsets when applying it to current master.  Note
> that you need to run the perl invocation before applying the patch.  Could you
> provide full output of your `patch' invocation, along with any reject files?

Ah, crap.  You're right.  I didn't follow your directions for how to
apply the patch.  Sorry.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql performance - SearchCatCache issue
Next
From: Steve Singer
Date:
Subject: Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors