Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I only saw that the Makefile is back to how it looked at rev 1.1 before I
> did some work on it. AFAICT the Makefile should be reverted back to the
> previous revision, since the code change does not require any changes to
> the Makefile.
I did this, also reinstalled the include-file changes I had made, and
then spent several fruitless hours trying to find why the "intbig" index
operators fail selftest here (on HP-PA). I suppose it's a portability
problem, since presumably they pass for Oleg ... but I don't see it.
Who else finds that the new contrib/intarray code passes or fails its
selftest, and on what platforms?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarray Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarray Oleg Bartunov
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarray Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarra... Oleg Bartunov
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarray Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarray Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarray Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarray Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarra... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-int... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contri... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of co... Oleg Bartunov
- [HACKERS] New version of contri... Oleg Bartunov
- [HACKERS] Re: New version of co... Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: New version of co... Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: New version of co... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-int... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of contri... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] new version of co... Bruce Momjian
