Re: Request for supported platforms - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Request for supported platforms
Date
Msg-id 200210302224.g9UMOQP25025@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Request for supported platforms  (Ian Barwick <barwick@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
I have reviewed your diff and found that it was either timezone changes
or join.sql which I have recently fixed.  Can you grab current CVS
snapshot and try again?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ian Barwick wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 October 2002 01:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Sorry, Ian, here is the patch I applied.  You can apply this to whatever
> > version you are using and test Irix with that, rather than having to
> > grab CVS.
> 
> OK, I have carried out make check with the updated tests but
> got FAILED on the same four tests (abstime, tinterval, horology, join).
> 
> The failures are subtly different (see here for new regression diff):
> 
> http://home.akademie.de/~IBarwick/IRIX_65_1.regression.diffs
> 
> Having looked at them again I see the following:
> - in horology the timestamp tests seem to have succeeded (presumably
>   the previous failures were triggered by the change to winter time);
> - the tests which are still failing in abstime, tinterval and horology
>   all refer to dates before 1970, where AFAICS they are all out by one hour;
>   possibly this explanation?:
> 
> "Some systems using older time zone libraries fail to apply daylight-saving 
> corrections to dates before 1970, causing pre-1970 PDT times to be displayed 
> in PST instead. This will result in localized differences in the test 
> results."
> 
>   (cf. http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?regress-evaluation.html );
> 
> - the join tests are failing slightly differently; I would suggest that
>   this is because the ORDER BY is still not explicit enough, and for what
>   ever reason under IRIX the undefined result row orderings are in a different
>   order to every other platform...
> 
>   e.g. with this statement:
> 
> SELECT '' AS "xxx", J1_TBL.i, j, t, k
>   FROM J1_TBL LEFT OUTER JOIN J2_TBL USING (i)
>   ORDER BY i;
> 
>  xxx | i | j |   t   | k  
> -----+---+---+-------+----
>      | 0 |   | zero  |   
>      | 1 | 4 | one   | -1
>      | 2 | 3 | two   |  2
>      | 2 | 3 | two   |  4
>      | 3 | 2 | three | -3
>      | 4 | 1 | four  |   
>      | 5 | 0 | five  | -5
>      | 5 | 0 | five  | -5
>      | 6 | 6 | six   |   
>      | 7 | 7 | seven |   
>      | 8 | 8 | eight |   
>      |   | 0 | zero  |   
>      |   |   | null  |   
> (13 rows)
> 
>   the order of the last two rows is not defined. The expected order
>   according to the regression tests is:
> 
>      |   |   | null  |
>      |   | 0 | zero  |   
> 
> 
> 
> Ian Barwick
> barwick@gmx.net
> 
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Oliver Elphick
Date:
Subject: 7.3b3 Regression tests passed on i386 Debian
Next
From: Justin Clift
Date:
Subject: Swedish version of the PostgreSQL "Advocacy and Marketing" site is ready