Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?
Date
Msg-id 2588.1119815549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> With that exception, we now have only one machine marked active that has 
> consistently failed on HEAD or REL8_0_STABLE: osprey (NetBSD 2.0 gcc 
> 3.3.3 m68k)

> I have asked its owner to look into what the problems might be.

The failure on HEAD appears to be a configuration problem (SHMMAX too
small or some such).  I'm not sure why the 8.0 branch doesn't fail
likewise (maybe HEAD's shmem request is just over the boundary?).
The contrib failure in 8.0 is something we had decided not to try to
fix, IIRC, given that tsearch is going away anyway.

Is it worth trying to fix things so that the buildfarm skips tests that
are known to fail and not deemed worth fixing?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: language handlers in public schema?