Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Can you clarify what went wrong for you on that one? I went to rebase it,
>>> but I end up with the identical patch except for a few line-numbering
>>> variations.
> It seems to be a legitimate complaint. The rejected hunk is trying to
> replace this line:
> ! return exec_simple_check_node((Node *) ((ArrayCoerceExpr
> *) node)->arg);
> But you removed exec_simple_check_node in
> 00418c61244138bd8ac2de58076a1d0dd4f539f3, so this 02 patch needs to be
> rebased.
Hm. My bad I guess --- apparently, the copy I had of this patch was
already rebased over that, but I'd not reposted it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers