Re: PostgreSLQ v10.1 and xlC compiler on AIX - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: PostgreSLQ v10.1 and xlC compiler on AIX
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqTtf-D9a5MmETwyhp=MF0CSvXi+8EjHkA5N-82AUKcG=w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to PostgreSLQ v10.1 and xlC compiler on AIX  ("REIX, Tony" <tony.reix@atos.net>)
Responses Re: PostgreSLQ v10.1 and xlC compiler on AIX  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
RE:PostgreSLQ v10.1 and xlC compiler on AIX  ("REIX, Tony" <tony.reix@atos.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:57 PM, REIX, Tony <tony.reix@atos.net> wrote:
> We are porting PostgreSQL v10.1 on AIX (7.2 for now).
> And we have several tests failures, in 32bit and 64bit.
> We are using xlc 13.01.0003.0003 with -O2.
> Tests were 100% OK with version 9.6.2 .
>
> About 32 bit failures within v10.1, we have 3 failures including:
>      create_aggregate         ... FAILED
>      aggregates               ... FAILED
>
> I've found that these 2 failures disappear when building :
>    ./src/backend/parser/gram.c
> without -O2 !
> However, this is a 44,498 lines file and it may take a while for finding the
> root issue.

When running regression tests and those fail, there is a file called
regressions.diff which gets generated in src/test/regress showing the
difference between the results generated and the results expected when
running the SQL queries which are part of the regression tests.
Attaching this file to this thread would help in determining what's
wrong with the regression tests.

> I invite anyone involved in porting/using PostgreSQL 10.1 on AIX to take
> part of a discussion about how to make v10.1 work perfectly on AIX.

Note that xlc 12.1 is tested with AIX machines on the buildfarms, but
there is no coverage for 13.1 visibly. It would be nice if you could
set up a buildfarm machine to catch problems way earlier.
-- 
Michael


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeevan Chalke
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?