Thread: Linux/Alpha patches for Postgresql 6.5.2
Ok, the Linux/Alpha patches for Postgresql 6.5.2 are attached to
this email (quite small after gzip). The procedure for use is the same as
for the 6.5.1 patches. Grab the 6.5.2 tarball, untar/ungzip it, then from
the top level directory of the source tree, run 'gzip -dc
/path/to/patch/postgresql-6.5.2-alpah.patch | patch -p1', and it should
apply cleanly. Then just compile, install, and run as usual.
The only regression tests that are failing are the sames ones as
for 6.5.1, geometry (off by one in nth decimal place) and rules (with
no-predefined sorting method, alpha's default sort is different than the
rest).
The patches are also on my web site, though notice the new URL,
http://www.rkirkpat.net/software/ to go directly to them. Also, if someone
could update my email address in the documentation (under Linux/Alpha
person, or where ever it shows up) to 'pgsql@rkirkpat.net' (from
rkirkpat@nag.cs.colorado.edu) that would be great! Thanks.
If you have any trouble with this patch, feel free to email me,
but please try and provide as much detail as possible as what you were
doing and what happened. The more detail you give me, the quicker I can
solve the problem. TTYL.
PS. Sorry for any duplicates of this message, but the lists did
not like my new email address until I had unsubscribed and resubscribed
with my new email address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." |
| --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV) |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Ryan Kirkpatrick | Boulder, Colorado | http://www.rkirkpat.net/ |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not its not. It is the 'cost' of the 'parsed' branch trees that are causing the final display to be slightly different. If one were to change the size of an 'internal' 'C struct' to be the same size of an 'i386' 'C struct' then the results are the same ( or at least make the sizeof() values the same ) then the results would be the same. as for the differences in the 'off by a small fraction' is due to i386 having 80bit float operations, and the alpha does 64bit float operations. ( Both under the same ieee mandate to do the same algorithm) gat Ryan Kirkpatrick wrote: > The only regression tests that are failing are the sames ones as > for 6.5.1, geometry (off by one in nth decimal place) and rules (with > no-predefined sorting method, alpha's default sort is different than the > rest).
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Uncle George wrote:
> Not its not. It is the 'cost' of the 'parsed' branch trees that are
> causing the final display to be slightly different. If one were to
> change the size of an 'internal' 'C struct' to be the same size of an
> 'i386' 'C struct' then the results are the same ( or at least make the
> sizeof() values the same ) then the results would be the same.
>
> as for the differences in the 'off by a small fraction' is due to i386
> having 80bit float operations, and the alpha does 64bit float
> operations. ( Both under the same ieee mandate to do the same
> algorithm)
> gat
Thank you for those clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." |
| --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV) |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Ryan Kirkpatrick | Boulder, Colorado | http://www.rkirkpat.net/ |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------