Thread: regression test results - Linux, cvs
This is a diff of several regression tests I run on my Linux box (last cvs): dv:~/cvs/pgsql/src/test/regress$ diff results/opr_sanity.out expected/opr_sanity.out 54,58c54,56 < oid|oprcode |oid|oprcode < ---+-----------------+---+----------------- < 512|on_ppath |754|pt_contained_path < 754|pt_contained_path|512|on_ppath < (2 rows) --- > oid|oprcode|oid|oprcode > ---+-------+---+------- > (0 rows) dv:~/cvs/pgsql/src/test/regress$ diff results/random.out expected/random.out 22,23c22 < 124 < (1 row) --- > (0 rows) dv:~/cvs/pgsql/src/test/regress$ diff results/geometry.out expected/geometry.out 115c115 < |(-10,0) |[(-1000000,200),(300000,-40)]|(-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140472) --- > |(-10,0) |[(-1000000,200),(300000,-40)]|(-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140473) Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
> This is a diff of several regression tests I run on my Linux box
> (last cvs):
All known problems/features being fixed now.
The random test fails occasionally (at random, suprisingly enough :)
since I'm doing a statistical test and occasionally the result falls
outside the arbitrary limits I set. But I didn't want the limits to be
too loose otherwise we might miss truly incorrect results. If you rerun,
random is likely to pass.
- Tom
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote: > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:38:41 +0000 > From: "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> > To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] regression test results - Linux, cvs > > > This is a diff of several regression tests I run on my Linux box > > (last cvs): > > All known problems/features being fixed now. > > The random test fails occasionally (at random, suprisingly enough :) > since I'm doing a statistical test and occasionally the result falls > outside the arbitrary limits I set. But I didn't want the limits to be > too loose otherwise we might miss truly incorrect results. If you rerun, > random is likely to pass. > Yes, random test passed ok 1 from 3 tries. I have no time to test its randomness :-) btw, vacuum crash when postmaster starts with -B 1024 option seems fixed now !!!! I tried many times 'vacuum analyze' and never get problem ! Probably this is a bonus of last fixes :-)Regards, Oleg > - Tom > _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:38:41 +0000 > > From: "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> > > To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> > > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] regression test results - Linux, cvs > > > > > This is a diff of several regression tests I run on my Linux box > > > (last cvs): > > > > All known problems/features being fixed now. > > > > The random test fails occasionally (at random, suprisingly enough :) > > since I'm doing a statistical test and occasionally the result falls > > outside the arbitrary limits I set. But I didn't want the limits to be > > too loose otherwise we might miss truly incorrect results. If you rerun, > > random is likely to pass. > > > > Yes, > random test passed ok 1 from 3 tries. I have no time to test its > randomness :-) > > btw, vacuum crash when postmaster starts with -B 1024 option > seems fixed now !!!! I tried many times 'vacuum analyze' and never > get problem ! Probably this is a bonus of last fixes :-) My guess is the catalog changes Tom did fixed it. Vacuum analyze uses them quite a bit, and buffer cache size could affect which duplicate was picked. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> btw, vacuum crash when postmaster starts with -B 1024 option
>> seems fixed now !!!! I tried many times 'vacuum analyze' and never
>> get problem ! Probably this is a bonus of last fixes :-)
> My guess is the catalog changes Tom did fixed it. Vacuum analyze uses
> them quite a bit, and buffer cache size could affect which duplicate was
> picked.
Hmm, that would be an unexpected side benefit, wouldn't it! It could be
true, if vacuum depends on pg_operator entries. That'd explain why the
rest of us couldn't duplicate Oleg's problem: I'll bet no one who tried
had tables containing the data types that had bogus entries. (In fact,
I imagine you need to have some *indexes* on those data types before
you'd see such a problem in vacuum, no?)
It occurs to me that there ought to be a VACUUM ANALYZE somewhere in
the regression suite, probably at the end where it has a whole database
of weird stuff to chew on.
regards, tom lane