Thread: [7.3-devl] Timezones on RH 7.3 and Null
I know this one has been a pain, but I'm getting regression failures on:
abstime ... FAILED tinterval ... FAILED
test horology ... FAILED
under RedHat 7.3 and RedHat Null Beta.
Thanks,
Gordon.
--
"Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." -- Theodore
Roosevelt
Gordon Runkle wrote: > I know this one has been a pain, but I'm getting regression failures on: > > abstime ... FAILED > tinterval ... FAILED > test horology ... FAILED > > under RedHat 7.3 and RedHat Null Beta. That's due to a glibc change and is expected, if not desired. Complain to Red Hat. For more info, see previous threads on HACKERS, notably this one: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-05/msg00740.php Joe
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 21:45, Joe Conway wrote: > That's due to a glibc change and is expected, if not desired. Complain > to Red Hat. For more info, see previous threads on HACKERS, notably this > one: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-05/msg00740.php Yeah, I remember that. The impression I had from the whole thing was that, yeah, it's a glibc issue, but it still has to be fixed. I guess I misunderstood? Gordon -- "Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Gordon Runkle wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 21:45, Joe Conway wrote: > >>That's due to a glibc change and is expected, if not desired. Complain >>to Red Hat. For more info, see previous threads on HACKERS, notably this >>one: >> >>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-05/msg00740.php > > > Yeah, I remember that. The impression I had from the whole thing was > that, yeah, it's a glibc issue, but it still has to be fixed. > > I guess I misunderstood? > Well a "real" fix sounded like a lot of work, and no one had the right combination of time/desire/knowledge/skill to go implement it. The "workaround" fix was discussed in this more recent thread: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-08/msg01233.php It still isn't clear to me exactly what needs to be done to implement the workaround, and since I don't really *need* dates before 1970 for my own purposes (presently at least), I haven't tried to figure it out in favor of other priorities. But I'm sure a fix would be enthusiastically greeted on the PATCHES list ;-) Joe
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 22:24, Joe Conway wrote: > Well a "real" fix sounded like a lot of work, and no one had the right > combination of time/desire/knowledge/skill to go implement it. The > "workaround" fix was discussed in this more recent thread: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-08/msg01233.php > > It still isn't clear to me exactly what needs to be done to implement > the workaround, and since I don't really *need* dates before 1970 for my > own purposes (presently at least), I haven't tried to figure it out in > favor of other priorities. Thanks, that's informative. I don't really understand the workaround either... > But I'm sure a fix would be enthusiastically greeted on the PATCHES list ;-) Probably not if I hacked away at it...at "Beta - 1" =:-o G. -- "Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." -- Theodore Roosevelt