Thread: Re: [PATCHES] test: please ignore
> I've posted a 6.5kB patch (as an attachment) three times over the > past few days but haven't seen it hit the lists. Checking to see if > this goes through. Did you by any chance gzip it? IIRC, mails with gzipped attachments are silently dropped on- patches for some reason. (Can't remember if it was all gzip or just tar.gz, but it was dropped. You can find a discussion about it in the archives around when i posted the msvc build patch stuff, sometime this summer a couple of days after the conference) //Magnus
"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes: >> I've posted a 6.5kB patch (as an attachment) three times over the >> past few days but haven't seen it hit the lists. Checking to see if >> this goes through. > Did you by any chance gzip it? IIRC, mails with gzipped attachments are > silently dropped on- patches for some reason. Hm? They've always worked fine for me, and for a lot of other people. You should ask Marc to look into this. regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes: > >> I've posted a 6.5kB patch (as an attachment) three times over the > >> past few days but haven't seen it hit the lists. Checking to see if > >> this goes through. > > > Did you by any chance gzip it? IIRC, mails with gzipped attachments are > > silently dropped on- patches for some reason. > > Hm? They've always worked fine for me, and for a lot of other people. > You should ask Marc to look into this. It depends on the MIME type IIRC. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> >> I've posted a 6.5kB patch (as an attachment) three times over > the > >> past few days but haven't seen it hit the lists. Checking to see > if > >> this goes through. > > > Did you by any chance gzip it? IIRC, mails with gzipped > attachments > > are silently dropped on- patches for some reason. > > Hm? They've always worked fine for me, and for a lot of other > people. > You should ask Marc to look into this. I did. You even confirmed that you had the same problem. See: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-08/msg00256.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-08/msg00273.php //Magnus