Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> writes:
> I have updated the patch posted by Jeff Davis on January 9th
> to include the micro-patch above as well as updated the polymorphism
> regressions tests. This applies cleanly to the latest CVS pull.
Applied --- thanks for being persistent about resolving the doubts on this.
One thing that apparently neither of you realized was that the
polymorphism results were varying between bigendian and littleendian
machines; I suppose you are using different hardware and that's why you
didn't agree on what the results should be.
Since we already agreed we were going to tolerate endianness dependence
in the hash functions, I fixed that by adding some ORDER BYs.
regards, tom lane
