Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: David Gould <dg(at)illustra(dot)com>
Cc: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?
Date: 1998-06-02 13:56:17
Message-ID: 35740481.FFBA9169@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > It is important that
> > whoever is running the "reference platform" be willing to run 
> > regression tests ad nauseum, and to track down any problems.
> Ok, I will make a set of Linux glibc expected files for 6.3.2 and if 
> that works send them in. Not sure how to handle the reference Linux vs 
> glibc Linux issue in terms of the way the tests are structured and 
> platforms named, but they do have different rounding behavior and 
> messages.

I'm running RH5.0 at work, but have RH4.2 at home. I'm reluctant to
upgrade at home because I have _all_ Postgres releases from v1.0.9 to
current installed and I can fire them up for testing in less than a
minute. If I upgrade to the new glibc2, I might have trouble rebuilding
the old source trees. Anyway, will probably upgrade sometime in the next
few months, and then the reference platform will be glibc2-based.

If you are generating new "expected" files for glibc2 shouldn't they be
based on the current development tree? Or are you providing them as a
patch for v6.3.2 to be installed in /pub/patches??

                   - Tom

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Goran ThyniDate: 1998-06-02 14:04:18
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] An easier way to upgrade (Was: Lots 'o patches)
Previous:From: Tak WoohyunDate: 1998-06-02 11:52:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hi. Sir....!!

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group