Indeed. I am going to revert it.
The trouble is we currently have several orthogonal variations, which is
a worry on its own:
. negative zero
. exponent format, and
. result ordering
Looking closer, the result ordering certainly does seem odd, as you say.
Surely with ORDER BY it should be deterministic. What is the rule that
describes the expected ordering of cube objects?
cheers
andrew
Rocco Altier wrote:
>I think this will cause breakage for other people.
>
>Right now I think the order is unique to AIX for some reason.
>
>Recent buildfarm run of gazelle should have matched the -0 variant
>(cube_1.out), but did not.
>
>Also, what is worrisome is that there is an ORDER BY on the result set
>that is failing on AIX, so I think there might be a deeper problem
>lurking here.
>
>Thanks,
> -rocco
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: pgsql-committers-owner@postgresql.org
>>[mailto:pgsql-committers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
>>Andrew Dunstan
>>Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:39 PM
>>To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
>>Subject: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: another try at keeping AIX/ppc
>>happy on cube test.
>>
>>
>>Log Message:
>>-----------
>>another try at keeping AIX/ppc happy on cube test.
>>
>>Modified Files:
>>--------------
>> pgsql/contrib/cube/expected:
>> cube_1.out (r1.4 -> r1.5)
>>
>>(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/cube
>>
>>
>/expected/cube_1.out.diff?r1=1.4&r2=1.5)
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
>
