Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kzt3Q-0001U3-01 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 03:12:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kzt3O-00044X-Sp for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 03:12:06 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kzt3O-00044P-Le for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 03:12:06 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kzt3I-0000V1-AI for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 03:12:05 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 10E3Bske1364546; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:11:54 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: Michael Paquier , Sehrope Sarkuni , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Moving other hex functions to /common In-reply-to: <20210114025534.GB15178@momjian.us> References: <20210105172109.GH7432@momjian.us> <20210106135823.GD32172@momjian.us> <20210111162730.GC4320@momjian.us> <20210112181300.GR4320@momjian.us> <20210114025534.GB15178@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Wed, 13 Jan 2021 21:55:34 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1364544.1610593914.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:11:54 -0500 Message-ID: <1364545.1610593914@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Bruce Momjian writes: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:17:40AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Thanks, Sehrope. I have reviewed the code this morning and fixed >> that, adjusted a couple of elog() strings I found inconsistent after >> review and ran pgindent. And applied it. > Thanks. All my key management regression tests pass on top of your > applied patch. Should the CF entry for this be closed? The cfbot is still trying to apply the patch, and unsurprisingly failing. regards, tom lane