The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 14:00 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
RC1:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/19869.1312298...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant,
2011/8/17 Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org:
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 14:00 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
RC1:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/19869.1312298...@sss.pgh.pa.us
In Tom's final email to the -core thread he mentions I see now that he
did say RC1. I
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
In Tom's final email to the -core thread he mentions I see now that he
did say RC1. I thought we were voting on the date though (not that I
have a problem with it being RC1).
Well, if this one's not ready to be an RC then I
Hello, Dave.
You wrote:
DP The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
DP release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
+1 for RC1
DP --
DP Dave Page
DP Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
DP Twitter: @pgsnake
DP EnterpriseDB UK:
On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to include fixes for the
two segfault plpython bugs[1] before wrapping up
On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be
On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
Sorry to butt
On 17 August 2011 16:56, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
release
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 17 August 2011 16:56, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
The current plan
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
On 17 August 2011 16:56, Jan UrbaÅski wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
It's not listed as a beta-blocker yet. I take it that it should?
Oh, in the wiki? I don't know, it is a segfault-causing bug, but all I
wanted was to draw
On 08/17/2011 09:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think you're imagining a lot more structure than actually exists in
this project ;-). Anybody can edit that page, and there's no necessary
consequence of something being written there. It's just notes to help
us keep track of issues, not something
Dave Byrne dby...@mdb.com writes:
I can confirm that the bug in pg_upgrade has been fixed with Bruce's patch
in commit 2411fbdac448045a23eebf4f0dbfd5790ebad720
Thanks, I marked it resolved on the wiki page.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
That doesn't mean other things can't or shouldn't be fixed - just that
they won't necessarily cause adjustment of the schedule to accomodate
them.
+1
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
Hi All,
Just a quick question because I don't get the reference to the
europeans. What do they have to do with the final release in August?
:)
Thanks,
- Martin -
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
All,
Where are we on RC1 or Beta4 for PostgreSQL 9.1?
To: Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
Cc: postgres hackers pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:48:03 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RC1 / Beta4?
Hi All,
Just a quick question because I don't get the reference to the
europeans. What do they have to do with the final release in August
On Saturday, July 30, 2011, Lou Picciano loupicci...@comcast.net wrote:
I think it's just that the Europeans - wisely - have a habit of taking
these long summer vacations (!)
They also tend to be taller and better-looking than the rest of us, and
have better food and wine.
:) Lou
This would
Now I understand.
At the day job we were being pushed hard to have some tests completed
before or on 30th June. The major push behind this was a French man!
:)
And yes, he's off for the next 2-3 weeks, and we did complete the tests!
- Martin -
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Dave Page
All,
Where are we on RC1 or Beta4 for PostgreSQL 9.1?
While I know we're doing going to do a final release in August due to the
europeans, it would be nice to move things along before then. There don't seem
to be any blockers open.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
On Thursday 18 June 2009 22:48:53 Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I noticed that the rc1 tarball does not contain man pages for
CREATE/ALTER/DROP FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER/SERVER/USER MAPPING.
Just eyeballing the files, I notice that those ref pages seem not
to contain
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:15:53 Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
One thing I notice is that the table and with entries are not coming
out as intended. The file names are all caps:
-rw-r--r-- 1 tglusers 18 Jun 12 01:37 WITH.7
-rw-r--r-- 1 tglusers 18
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:15:53 Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, as far as that particular point goes: maybe we could fix the tools
issues underlying this, but I'm tempted to think that it's not worth the
trouble, because making these man pages be aliases for
On Friday 19 June 2009 19:12:50 Tom Lane wrote:
Well, at the time I thought that WITH would only be a sub-clause of
SELECT. The idea that we might allow it to be attached to INSERT etc
causes me to revise my opinion a bit. Do you have a preference one
way or the other about how to do this?
I noticed that the rc1 tarball does not contain man pages for
CREATE/ALTER/DROP FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER/SERVER/USER MAPPING. But it does
contain man pages for TABLE and WITH, so it appears to be 8.4 material.
Can someone check, or remind me how the man pages end up in the tarball?
--
Sent via
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Can someone check, or remind me how the man pages end up in the tarball?
They're supposed to be built on the fly, and the file dates in the rc1
tarball do appear to match the time of tarball building. Do you get
what you expect if you build the man pages
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I noticed that the rc1 tarball does not contain man pages for
CREATE/ALTER/DROP FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER/SERVER/USER MAPPING.
Just eyeballing the files, I notice that those ref pages seem not
to contain this boilerplate:
manvolnum7/manvolnum
which is
I wrote:
One thing I notice is that the table and with entries are not coming
out as intended. The file names are all caps:
-rw-r--r-- 1 tglusers 18 Jun 12 01:37 WITH.7
-rw-r--r-- 1 tglusers 18 Jun 12 01:37 TABLE.7
and the content surely isn't what
'k, I'm upgraded for 1.79 and RC3 ...
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
'k, I'm about to screw up rc2 for this too ... FreeBSD ports is
'stuck' at 1.78 ...
Well, file a bug to get it updated?
just went to
http://sourceforge.net/projects/docbook, and there are two
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
'k, I'm about to screw up rc2 for this too ... FreeBSD ports is
'stuck' at 1.78 ...
Well, file a bug to get it updated?
just went to
http://sourceforge.net/projects/docbook, and there are two '1.79's
... do both need to be installed, or just one of them?
The second
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2004 00:12 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:
look her over ... I forced a sync to the ftp.postgresql.org server, so its
available there ... will announce later this evening baring any 'its
broken' commends ;)
You are building the
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2004 00:12 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:
look her over ... I forced a sync to the ftp.postgresql.org server, so its
available there ... will announce later this evening baring any 'its
broken'
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2004 00:12 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:
look her over ... I forced a sync to the ftp.postgresql.org server, so its
available there ... will announce later this
Am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2004 00:12 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:
look her over ... I forced a sync to the ftp.postgresql.org server, so its
available there ... will announce later this evening baring any 'its
broken' commends ;)
You are building the documentation with old stylesheets. Please use
look her over ... I forced a sync to the ftp.postgresql.org server, so its
available there ... will announce later this evening baring any 'its
broken' commends ;)
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
look her over ... I forced a sync to the ftp.postgresql.org server, so its
available there ... will announce later this evening baring any 'its
broken' commends ;)
Tarball looks alright to me.
regards, tom lane
As promised, I've posted 8.0.0rc1 rpms here:
http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0rc/
Again note that these are not official PGDG rpms, just my own home brew.
In addition to the change of Postgres itself from beta5 to rc1, I
updated jdbc to latest beta (pg80b1.308*).
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
Christopher Browne writes:
bash-2.05a$ uname -a
AIX ibm-db 1 5 000CD13A4C00
We already have a report for AIX. Were you trying to indicate that this
is a different variant thereof?
Actually, after some more work, there's an anomaly when
Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This _seems_ a cosmetic difference, or am I way wrong?
I think you can ignore it. It's odd that your setup seems to support
minus zero (else there'd be more diffs) but doesn't get the right answer
for this single computation. Still, it's basically a
... much omitted ...
alter_table ... ok
sequence ... ok
polymorphism ... ok
stats... ok
== shutting down postmaster ==
==
All 93 tests passed.
==
rm
Christopher Browne writes:
bash-2.05a$ uname -a
AIX ibm-db 1 5 000CD13A4C00
We already have a report for AIX. Were you trying to indicate that this
is a different variant thereof?
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christopher Browne writes:
bash-2.05a$ uname -a
AIX ibm-db 1 5 000CD13A4C00
We already have a report for AIX. Were you trying to indicate that this
is a different variant thereof?
I'm afraid I hadn't seen another AIX report; this may replicate
Christopher Browne writes:
I'm afraid I hadn't seen another AIX report; this may replicate other reports...
See http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/supported-platforms.html
for a list of platforms that have been verified with 7.4.
(Linux/Playstation, Linux/hppa, and UnixWare will be
At 1:15 AM -0500 11/20/02, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom, can you clarify why -0 is valid.
The IEEE spec absolutely thinks that -0 and +0 are distinct entities.
I don't remember why, at one in the morning ... but if you insist I'm
sure that plenty sufficient
At 1:51 PM -0500 11/20/02, Tom Lane wrote:
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:21:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Ah-hah, so it is a version issue --- we could make the resultmap line
something like
geometry/.*-netbsd1.[0-5]=geometry-positive-zeros
system = powerpc-ibm-aix4.2.1.0
configure command
env CC=gcc ./configure --with-maxbackends=1024 --with-openssl=/usr/local/ssl
--enable-syslog --enable-odbc --disable-nls
gmake check output file
regression.out
--
parallel group (13 tests): text varchar oid int2 char boolean
)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:45:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Samuel A Horwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RC1? AIX 4.2.1.0
system = powerpc-ibm-aix4.2.1.0
configure command
env CC=gcc ./configure --with-maxbackends=1024 --with-openssl
Patrick Welche wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:22:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
He was testing 7.4devel. That's not the right one.
What's the difference? (Do I really want to wait another day while this
ancient box compiles it given that the chances of it working under
7.4devel
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, can you clarify why -0 is valid. Is it for _small_ near zero
values that are indeed negative?
Branch Cuts for Complex Elementary Functions, or Much Ado About
Nothing's Sign Bit W. Kahan; ch. 7 in _The State of the Art in
Numerical Analysis_ ed.
Tom Lane writes:
AFAIK, all modern hardware claims compliance to the IEEE floating-point
arithmetic standard, so failure to print minus zero as minus zero is
very likely to be a software issue not hardware. That suggests strongly
that the issue is netbsd version (specifically libc version)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:48:15PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
AFAIK, all modern hardware claims compliance to the IEEE floating-point
arithmetic standard, so failure to print minus zero as minus zero is
very likely to be a software issue not hardware. That suggests
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right, the equivalent for NetBSD vfprintf.c is:
revision 1.40
date: 2001/11/28 11:58:22; author: kleink; state: Exp; lines: +4 -4
Since we're returned the sign of a floating-point number by __dtoa(),
use that to decide whether to include a minus
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The next FreeBSD subrelease (4.8?) should have this fixed. OpenBSD is not
fixed. NetBSD and Darwin seem to have temporarily hidden their cvsweb in
shame, but I would assume it's the same issue. Not sure what HP-UX is
doing about it.
HP has
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:21:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
NetBSD 1.5 has revision 1.32, NetBSD 1.6 has revision 1.42
Ah-hah, so it is a version issue --- we could make the resultmap line
something like
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:21:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Ah-hah, so it is a version issue --- we could make the resultmap line
something like
geometry/.*-netbsd1.[0-5]=geometry-positive-zeros
NetBSD/i386-1.6H i386-unknown-netbsdelf1.6H
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:51:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:21:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Ah-hah, so it is a version issue --- we could make the resultmap line
something like
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just realised: the answers I gave above were with the config.guess from
automake 1.7a!
% uname -srmp
NetBSD 1.6K acorn32 arm
% postgresql-7.3rc1/config/config.guess
acorn32-unknown-netbsd1.6K
% automake/lib/config.guess
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:33:41AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Patrick Welche wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:22:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
He was testing 7.4devel. That's not the right one.
What's the difference? (Do I really want to wait another day while this
ancient
Ports list updated:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/supported-platforms.html
---
Patrick Welche wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:33:41AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Patrick Welche wrote:
On Tue,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:06:01AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Naeslund(f) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK OK, before anyone rubs my nose in it, i see the fork() failures :)
I'll see what's causing the fork() problems...
Too low processes-per-user limit, likely.
Success for
PostgreSQL
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[remove this:]
-geometry/.*-netbsd=geometry-positive-zeros
as this acorn32 is running on a StrongARM processor, so has nothing to do
with libm387. Maybe get rid of the geometry-positive-zeros and see if
someone complains and tells me otherwise?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:53:59AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[remove this:]
-geometry/.*-netbsd=geometry-positive-zeros
as this acorn32 is running on a StrongARM processor, so has nothing to do
with libm387. Maybe get rid of the
Ports list updated:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/supported-platforms.html
---
Patrick Welche wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:06:01AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Naeslund(f) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He was testing 7.4devel. That's not the right one.
Bruce Momjian writes:
Ports list updated:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/supported-platforms.html
---
Patrick Welche wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14,
Backed out. Peter. thanks for spotting that.
Patrick, would you please test 7.3RC1?
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
He was testing 7.4devel. That's not the right one.
Bruce Momjian writes:
Ports list updated:
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:53:59AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Presumably that was put in because it was correct on i86. How do you
feel about changing that entry to
geometry/i.86-.*-netbsd=geometry-positive-zeros
rather than deleting it?
I was under the
Tom, can you clarify why -0 is valid. Is it for _small_ near zero
values that are indeed negative?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:53:59AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks okay from here ... I'll put out a notice later this evening if
nobody sees anything wrong with it ...
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Note that we have *zero* reports for any flavor of NetBSD and
OpenBSD.
Maybe they're both dead platforms? ;-)
Well, OpenBSD isn't dead :)
But i have problems compiling 7.3b5 on it (OpenBSD 3.1 i386).
I figured i should give it a go, since nobody
Magnus Naeslund(f) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, OpenBSD isn't dead :)
But i have problems compiling 7.3b5 on it (OpenBSD 3.1 i386).
I figured i should give it a go, since nobody else did, but i get many
regression failures.
OK OK, before anyone rubs my nose in it, i see the fork()
Magnus Naeslund(f) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK OK, before anyone rubs my nose in it, i see the fork() failures :)
I'll see what's causing the fork() problems...
Too low processes-per-user limit, likely.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Ports list updated:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/supported-platforms.html
---
Patrick Welche wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:53:00PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
We can't
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:13:56PM +, Patrick Welche wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:53:00PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
We can't just wait around indefinitely for port reports that may or may
not ever appear. In any case, most of the 7.3 entries in the list
Tom Lane wrote:
Seriously, I agree with Marc's opinion that issuing an RC1 is the best
way to flush out some more port reports. I do not know what else we can
do to get people off their duffs and onto last-minute testing.
If testing is the problem, I think publicizing the betas would help
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:53:00PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
We can't just wait around indefinitely for port reports that may or may
not ever appear. In any case, most of the 7.3 entries in the list
seem to be various flavors of *BSD; I think it's unlikely we broke
Tom, would you really be able to ask Permaine to retest 7.3? Have a
feeling we might be able to leverage the PlayStation2 brand name here
for the Advocacy project.
:-)
Anyone try it on an Xbox yet?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Are we ready for RC1 yet?
Questionable. We don't even have 50% confirmation coverage for the
supported platforms yet.
We can't just wait around indefinitely for port reports that
My suspicion falls on the very-recently-added awk calls. Try changing
(echo SET autocommit TO 'on';; awk 'BEGIN {printf
\\set ECHO all\n}'; cat $inputdir/sql/$1.sql) |
Why use awk for this at all ? and not:
echo \\set ECHO all
??
Andreas
---(end of
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why use awk for this at all ? and not:
echo \\set ECHO all
I think Bruce is worried about portability; some versions of echo might
do something weird with the backslash. OTOH, it's not obvious to me
that awk is better on that score. Bruce?
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:06:15 EST, the world broke into rejoicing as
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why use awk for this at all ? and not:
echo \\set ECHO all
I think Bruce is worried about portability; some versions of echo might
do
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why use awk for this at all ? and not:
echo \\set ECHO all
Actually, some googling revealed the following advice (in the Autoconf
manual):
Because of these problems, do not pass a string containing
arbitrary characters to echo. For
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, now that I've run it that way, the last couple of pages of output
look like this:
Hm. So the while read line loop is iterating only once.
I was thinking to myself that something within the while loop
Nigel J. Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, gmake check and gmake bigcheck pass on:
FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE #3: Thu Feb 3 23:48:56 GMT 2000
with the expection of:
[snipped]
in the float8 test.
Okay, looks like we need to use float8-fp-exception.out on your
platform. This is a bit
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Nigel J. Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, gmake check and gmake bigcheck pass on:
FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE #3: Thu Feb 3 23:48:56 GMT 2000
with the expection of:
[snipped]
in the float8 test.
Okay, looks like we need to use
Nigel J. Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know anything about how the tests are put together so I'd have
to look into that before suggesting a way to differentiate my
system. Having said that wouldn't the 3.3-RELEASE string be
sufficient?
The mechanism we have in place relies on
We can't just wait around indefinitely for port reports that may or may
not ever appear. In any case, most of the 7.3 entries in the list
seem to be various flavors of *BSD; I think it's unlikely we broke
those ...
Note that we have *zero* reports for any flavor of NetBSD and OpenBSD.
Nigel J. Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, gmake check and gmake bigcheck pass on:
FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE #3: Thu Feb 3 23:48:56 GMT 2000
with the expection of:
[snipped]
in the float8 test.
Okay, looks like we need to use float8-fp-exception.out on your
platform. This is a bit
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane writes:
We can't just wait around indefinitely for port reports that may or may
not ever appear. In any case, most of the 7.3 entries in the list
seem to be various flavors of *BSD; I think it's unlikely we broke
those ...
Note that we
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane writes:
We can't just wait around indefinitely for port reports that may or may
not ever appear. In any case, most of the 7.3 entries in the list
seem to be various flavors of *BSD; I think it's unlikely we broke
those
I added it to the ports list as OK. We can deal with fixing the
regression falure independently.
---
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Nigel J. Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW,
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
We can't just wait around indefinitely for port reports that may or may
not ever appear. In any case, most of the 7.3 entries in the list
seem to be various flavors of *BSD; I think it's unlikely we broke
those ...
Note that we have *zero* reports
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How shall we distinguish your version of freebsd from the ones that
need the other comparison file?
He is using the FreeBSD 3.x series (which is quite old now), whereas most
people are probably using 4.x. I have no problems with regression
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Anyone care about the PlayStation 2 port ;=) ? I can get Permaine to
retest if so. Slightly more seriously, we did see a recent report of
trouble on S/390 Linux, but the complainant didn't follow up...
I put an S/390 patch into
Neil Conway wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Anyone care about the PlayStation 2 port ;=) ? I can get Permaine to
retest if so. Slightly more seriously, we did see a recent report of
trouble on S/390 Linux, but the complainant didn't follow up...
I
Tom Lane wrote:
snip
Anyone care about the PlayStation 2 port ;=) ? I can get Permaine to
retest if so. Slightly more seriously, we did see a recent report of
trouble on S/390 Linux, but the complainant didn't follow up...
Heh Heh Heh
Tom, would you really be able to ask Permaine to retest
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Are we ready for RC1 yet?
This is Tuesday, you can only ask on Fridays :)
Vince.
--
http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com
Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.
Are we ready for RC1 yet?
I'm waiting for jenny wang confirms the fix regarding GB18030
support. In the mean time, I'll commit the fix anyway since current
GB183030 support is so badly broken (I have checked all regression
tests have passed).
--
Tatsuo Ishii
---(end of
'K, looks like we need two things confirmed ... the change that Tom made
concerning mktime(), which we need someone on AIX to test ... and the
following ...
I've been following the commit messages closely, and haven't seen anything
go in that make me edgy, so if we can get validation on those
Are we ready for RC1 yet?
I think so. The NO_MKTIME_BEFORE_1970 issue was bothering me, but I
feel that's resolved now. (It'd be nice to hear a crosscheck from
some AIX users though...)
abstime, tinterval and horology fail on AIX.
The rest is now working (AIX 4.3.2 xlc 5.0.0.2).
I am
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
abstime, tinterval and horology fail on AIX.=20
I would expect them now (without NO_MKTIME_BEFORE_1970) to match the
solaris-1947 comparison files for these tests. Could you confirm that?
regards, tom lane
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
