Re: 7.3.2 Regression Failures Worth Looking Into - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom
Subject Re: 7.3.2 Regression Failures Worth Looking Into
Date
Msg-id 1568.63.226.186.156.1048998047.squirrel@mail.minnesota.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7.3.2 Regression Failures Worth Looking Into  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
> "Thomas T. Thai" <tom@minnesota.com> writes:
>> NetBSD 1.6 / Alpha (64-bit)
>> Postgresql 7.3.2 & 7.4-dev
>> gcc-3.2.2
>
>> I compiled 7.4-dev and had success with all regression tests. However
>> when I went back to 7.3.2, about 15 out of 89 tests failed.
>
> Failed how?  Without looking at the diffs, it's impossible to evaluate
> the seriousness of the issue.

I can send the diffs to you Tom, but it's too big to send to the list.
Would that be ok with you?

>> I'll be using 7.4-dev, but I'm wondering if it's worth it to the
>> Postgresql community if I dig further to see why those tests failed;
>> considering that obviously 7.4-dev fixed all of them.
>
> AFAIK there are not any portability enhancements in 7.4 that might
> explain such a difference. So the 7.3 results are interesting.  You
> should probably rule out pilot error though (does "select version()"
> confirm that you rebuilt with the newer compiler?)

template1=# select version();
                                   version
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PostgreSQL 7.3.2 on alpha-unknown-netbsd1.6, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 3.2.2
(1 row)

foo=# select version();
                                    version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PostgreSQL 7.4devel on alpha-unknown-netbsd1.6, compiled by GCC cc (GCC)
3.2.2
(1 row)


Thomas T. Thai


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Daniel R. Anderson"
Date:
Subject: Making Complicated References
Next
From: Georg Steffers
Date:
Subject: who can fix RENAME in plpgsql