ne 27. 10. 2024 v 18:42 odesÃlatel Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
> I wrote: > > In the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished department: buildfarm member > > hamerkop doesn't like this patch [1]. The diffs look like > > ... > > So what I'd like to do to fix this is to change > > - if ((file = AllocateFile(filename, PG_BINARY_R)) == NULL) > > + if ((file = AllocateFile(filename, "r")) == NULL) > > Well, that didn't fix it :-(. I went so far as to extract the raw log > files from the buildfarm database, and what they show is that there is > absolutely no difference between the lines diff is claiming are > different: > > -QUERY: CREATE FUNCTIN my_erroneous_func(int) RETURNS int LANGUAGE SQL\r\n > +QUERY: CREATE FUNCTIN my_erroneous_func(int) RETURNS int LANGUAGE SQL\r\n > > It's the same both before and after 924e03917, which made the code > change depicted above, so that didn't help. > > So I'm pretty baffled. I suppose the expected and result files must > actually be different, and something in subsequent processing is > losing the difference before it gets to the buildfarm database. > But I don't have the ability to debug that from here. Does anyone > with access to hamerkop want to poke into this? > > Without additional information, the only thing I can think of that > I have any confidence will eliminate these failures is to reformat > the affected test cases so that they produce just a single line of > output. That's kind of annoying from a functionality-coverage point > of view, but I'm not sure avoiding it is worth moving mountains for. > > In any case, I'm disinclined to revert 924e03917. It seems like a > good change on balance, even if it failed to fix whatever is > happening on hamerkop. > +1 This is very useful feature Pavel > regards, tom lane >
