But as I said before, with the same src, & tests, same collating
seq, same lang, same 'c' compiler , and same ..........., u'd expect to
get the same results. If u don't, as i have found out, there is an
inconsistency in the PORT, libraries, etc ( whatever ) .
I can go to upgrade to RH6.0/i386( mine is RH5.2 ) and see if is
the same as the RH6.0/alpha, but I really suspect it will (still ) be
different ( as the RH5.2/i386 matches expected/rules.out ).
Therefor to resolve this inconsistency, I would like to know where
the output get ( or gets not ) sorted properly. Any suggestions ?
Linux, et al, is suppose to be consistent on all platforms, and a
lot of people try very hard to get each linux port in-line with all
other ports. I dont percieve postgresql as being any different on any
other linux/( intel/alpha/ppc/sparc/mips ) machine. So I have said, so
shall it be done. ( :-) )
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > But I think that a computer has no right to any "damn order" it
> > wants to, particular if its the same src & test facilities.
> Now that you mention it, it isn't the same source since we use some
> Unix library sorting routines. It is fairly common for us to see
> ordering differences between platforms, which is why you see so many
> "order by" clauses in the regression tests. We can add one more (send
> patches? :) and you would never know there was a difference in
> underlying behavior...
> - Thomas
In response to
pgsql-ports by date
|Next:||From: Hub.Org News Admin||Date: 1999-07-23 22:54:13|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-07-23 16:30:27|
|Subject: Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Oleg Bartunov||Date: 1999-07-23 19:44:52|
|Subject: vacuum analyze problem |
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 1999-07-23 17:32:55|
|Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] Re: SSL patch|