On 20/07/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reini Urban [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW: HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 is defined, so INT64_IS_BUSTED is defined also.
You sure? INT64_IS_BUSTED should *not* be set in that case --- it's
only supposed to be set if we couldn't find any 64-bit-int type
Adrian Maier wrote:
On 20/07/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reini Urban [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW: HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 is defined, so INT64_IS_BUSTED is
defined also.
You sure? INT64_IS_BUSTED should *not* be set in that case --- it's
only supposed to be set if we couldn't
On 01/08/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
On 20/07/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently the regression test is comparing the results/float8.out
with expected/float8-small-is-zero.out because of the following line
in
src/test/regress/resultmap :
[ re cassowary buildfarm failure ]
Adrian Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 20/07/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the regression test failure, it's odd because it looks to me that
the actual test output is an exact match to the default float8.out
file. I'm not sure why
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we need to abandon trying to map float8 results exactly in the
resultmap file, and just let pg_regress pick the best fit as we do with
some other tests.
I thought about that too but it seems a very bad idea. small-is-zero is
distinctly less
On 01/08/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we need to abandon trying to map float8 results exactly in the
resultmap file, and just let pg_regress pick the best fit as we do with
some other tests.
I thought about that too but it seems a very
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One other thought I had was that we could have
pg_regress always allow a fallback to the canonical result file.
Hm, that's a good thought. Want to see how painful it is to code?
Would this do the trick?
cheers
andrew
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would this do the trick?
I think Bruce changed the call convention for run_diff ... are you
looking at CVS tip? Otherwise it looks reasonable.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would this do the trick?
I think Bruce changed the call convention for run_diff ... are you
looking at CVS tip? Otherwise it looks reasonable.
You're right. I had forgotten to do a cvs update. Fixed and committed.
cheers
