Bruce Momjian wrote:
> While applying the NT regression tests, I remember Tom Lane's comment
> that people are being much more picky about the regression results. In
> the old days, we could just say that they will have _expected_ errors,
> but now they want them to match exactly.
Well, it is NICE if they match exactly, but not essential for me. I
have been advising intel RPM dist users to _expect_ float8 and geometry
failures -- and the occassional 'random' failure, of course. And the
situation with RedHat 6.1's locales brings yet another mixed bag -- I
advise intel RPM users to completely disable RedHat's locale support (by
renaming /etc/sysconfig/i18n to something else and rebooting) for
performing regression tests -- then they can restore locale. Sort order
under RedHat 6.1's locale is _messed_up_.
Thomas mentioned RedHat 6.1 Intel being an appropriate reference
platform -- if that is the case, then RH 6.1 Intel needs exact matches.
Of course, ANY platform can be the reference -- as long as _one_ is. If
BSD/os 4 (or whatever rev you're currently running) were to be the
reference, then the regression tests had better match your machine's
My opinion is to select the reference platform that produces the least
amount of failures for other known good platforms.
Also, geometry wouldn't fail if the number of digits of precision was
jacked down one.... :-).
> Kind of funny, their standards are going up.
Is it a case of standards going up, or standards going down? ;-)
As far as PostgreSQL's performance, our standards are definitely going
up -- there has never been a better PostgreSQL, all around, than the one
that is in CURRENT, IMO (and I've used everything since 6.1.1).
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2000-03-31 14:50:37|
|Subject: Re: Docs refreshed|
|Previous:||From: Vince Vielhaber||Date: 2000-03-31 14:45:47|
|Subject: Re: pgAccess change|