On 2024-07-09 21:53 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, that didn't take long: several animals are reporting
> different error text for one or both of those new test cases.
> [...snip...]
> At the moment I'm thinking that we should just remove those
> new test cases again.
+1
--
Erik
I wrote:
> I'll push this change in a little bit (still gotta write commit
> message) and indri should go back to green. Unless one of the
> other animals complains, I'll set about back-patching in a
> day or two.
Well, that didn't take long: several animals are reporting
different error text
Erik Wienhold writes:
> So how about just ignoring XML_ERR_NOT_WELL_BALANCED like in the
> attached?
Oh, that's a good idea. Given that we know they've changed the
behavior around this at least once, I'm not sure that it's safe
to unconditionally ignore this error --- but we could ignore it
as
On 2024-07-07 22:43 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> As far as the errcontext changes go: I think we have to just bite
> the bullet and accept them. It looks like 2.13 has a completely
> different mechanism than prior versions for deciding when to issue
> XML_ERR_NOT_WELL_BALANCED. And it's not even
I wrote:
> I saw that one. It would be good to have a replacement for
> xmlParseBalancedChunkMemory, because after looking at the libxml2
> sources I realize that that's classed as a SAX1 function, which means
> it will likely go away at some point (maybe it's already not there in
> some builds).
I wrote:
> I think we could work around it as attached. This relies on seeing
> that the 2.13 code will return a node list if and only if
> ctxt->wellFormed is true (and we already eliminated the empty-input
> case, so an empty node list shouldn't happen). But it's not a lot
> less ugly than
Erik Wienhold writes:
> On 2024-07-06 20:43 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm disinclined to spend much effort on working around dot-zero bugs.
> Found an open issue about ABI compatibility that affects 2.12.7 and
> possibly also 2.13: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/issues/751.
> Maybe
On 2024-07-06 20:43 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> One angle that ought to be considered is that some of this stuff may
> be flat-out bugs in 2.13.0. I see at
>
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/releases
>
> that both 2.13.1 and 2.13.2 contain fixes for "regressions" in 2.13.0.
> I'm
I wrote:
> One angle that ought to be considered is that some of this stuff may
> be flat-out bugs in 2.13.0. I see at
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/releases
> that both 2.13.1 and 2.13.2 contain fixes for "regressions" in 2.13.0.
> I'm disinclined to spend much effort on working
Erik Wienhold writes:
> On 2024-07-06 16:25 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, apparently --- I get what look like the same diffs with
>> libxml2 2.13.0 recently supplied by MacPorts. Grumble.
>> Somebody's going to have to look into that.
> Here's a patch that fixes just the xmlserialize and
On 2024-07-06 16:25 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Wienhold writes:
> > So, there must be breaking changes in 2.13.0:
> > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/releases/v2.13.0
>
> Yeah, apparently --- I get what look like the same diffs with
> libxml2 2.13.0 recently supplied by MacPorts.
Erik Wienhold writes:
> So, there must be breaking changes in 2.13.0:
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/releases/v2.13.0
Yeah, apparently --- I get what look like the same diffs with
libxml2 2.13.0 recently supplied by MacPorts. Grumble.
Somebody's going to have to look into that.
On 2024-07-06 11:57 +0200, Frank Streitzig wrote:
> >> My system is a Arch Linux.
> >> I get after upgrade the libxml2 package (from 2.12.7-1 to 2.13.1-1)
> >> test errors for xml:
> >>
> >> not ok 202 + xml 1464 ms
> >> [...snip...]
> >> # 1 of 222 tests
>> My system is a Arch Linux.
>> I get after upgrade the libxml2 package (from 2.12.7-1 to 2.13.1-1)
>> test errors for xml:
>>
>> not ok 202 + xml 1464 ms
>> [...snip...]
>> # 1 of 222 tests failed.
>> # The differences that caused some tests to fail can be
On 2024-07-05 15:33 +0200, Frank Streitzig wrote:
> My system is a Arch Linux.
> I get after upgrade the libxml2 package (from 2.12.7-1 to 2.13.1-1)
> test errors for xml:
>
> not ok 202 + xml 1464 ms
> [...snip...]
> # 1 of 222 tests failed.
> # The
Hello hackers,
i compile postgresql just for fun.
My system is a Arch Linux.
I get after upgrade the libxml2 package (from 2.12.7-1 to 2.13.1-1) test errors
for xml:
---
...
ok 200 + largeobject 553 ms
ok 201 + with
16 matches
Mail list logo
