On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Yes. We can infer that. It makes it a whole lot easier to fix
> something with better bug repors than that, of course, as I'm sure you
> (Robert in this case, not Stephen) are generally aware of.
>
> I've reverted a patch that was applied a few days ago that dealt with
> how URLs are parsed, and I think that's the one that's responsible.
> But it would be good to have an actual example of what didn't work,
> because the links i tried all worked...
Hmm. Sorry for the lack of detail. I assumed the problem was obvious
and widespread because I clicked on the first link I saw in the Todo
and it didn't work. But after clicking a bunch more links from the
Todo, I only found three that fail.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01340.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01831.php
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4B577E9F.8000505%40dunslane.net/
That last one works if I change %40 to @, so that one might be a wiki
problem rather than an archives problem. In fact, for all I know the
other two might have been broken all along too; I'm just assuming they
used to work.
Sorry for going overboard,
...Robert
