On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The new buildfarm machines huia and moa aren't doing terribly well
with the older PG branches. This isn't really those machines' fault;
what I find after a bit of digging is that we just didn't have good
support for 64-bit
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Also, although moa is actually green for 8.3, it's showing an initdb
failure in 8.4 and up (cache lookup failed for type 0 while processing
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Also, although moa is actually green for 8.3, it's showing an initdb
failure in 8.4 and up (cache lookup failed for type 0 while processing
system_views.sql). I'm betting this is some sort
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
moa, which is claimed on the buildfarm dashboard to be using gcc but is
actually using cc, hits the spinlock problem in 8.0 and 8.1 and the
BYTE_ORDER problem in 8.2.
Per above, moa is
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Also, although moa is actually green for 8.3, it's showing an initdb
failure in 8.4 and up (cache lookup failed for type 0
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
moa, which is claimed on the buildfarm dashboard to be using gcc but is
actually using cc, hits the spinlock problem in
The new buildfarm machines huia and moa aren't doing terribly well
with the older PG branches. This isn't really those machines' fault;
what I find after a bit of digging is that we just didn't have good
support for 64-bit Solaris until relatively recently. In particular:
* There was no 64-bit
I wrote:
what I find after a bit of digging is that we just didn't have good
support for 64-bit Solaris until relatively recently. In particular:
BTW, just for the record: it's Solaris on 64-bit Intel that's at
issue. 64-bit Sparc support goes way back, as evidenced by the fact
that
