Re: [PORTS] HP-UX port

From: Michael J Schout <mschout(at)mail(dot)gkg-com(dot)com>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, pgsql-ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PORTS] HP-UX port
Date: 1999-07-30 19:22:18
Message-ID: 199907301922.OAA32520@mail.gkg-com.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-ports

> Michael J Schout <mschout(at)mail(dot)gkg-com(dot)com> writes:
> > and the actual results are:
> > QUERY: SELECT random FROM RANDOM_TBL
> > WHERE random NOT BETWEEN 80 AND 120;
> > random
> > ------
> > 123
> > (1 row)
>
> > Which looks like a genuine bug to me :).
>
> No, that's expected behavior, actually. The random test wouldn't be
> random if it didn't fail occasionally :-). The parameters are set so

I agree :). When I qlanced at it the first time, I missed the "NOT" in the
query, so I didnt think that 123 should have been returned at all, which is
obviously false :). It looks like the regressions are okay then, which is
a relief :).

...
> Interesting. May or may not be a 64-bit issue; it might be a problem
> with the machine-dependent spinlock code. Check out
> src/include/storage/s_lock.h and src/backend/storage/buffer/s_lock.c.

Ill hopefully get some time next week to look at this. I'll let you know
if I can figure it out :)

Mike

In response to

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 1999-07-30 21:37:16 Re: [HACKERS] Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha!
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-07-30 17:59:38 Re: [HACKERS] Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha!