Re: v7.2.3 - tag'd, packaged ... need it checked ...

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: v7.2.3 - tag'd, packaged ... need it checked ...
Date: 2002-10-03 04:29:18
Message-ID: 200210030029.18866.lamar.owen@wgcr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday 02 October 2002 11:52 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > Looks good from my end, Peter, I pulled the same docs that I pulled for
> > v7.2.2, which I hope is okay?

> Sources look okay from here. Didn't look at the built-docs files.

Builds fine here for RPM usage. Got an odd diff in the triggers regression
test: did we drop a NOTICE? If so, the regression output should probably
have been changed too. The diff:
*** ./expected/triggers.out Sat Jan 15 14:18:23 2000
--- ./results/triggers.out Thu Oct 3 00:16:09 2002
***************
*** 75,91 ****
insert into fkeys values (60, '6', 4);
ERROR: check_fkeys_pkey2_exist: tuple references non-existing key in fkeys2
delete from pkeys where pkey1 = 30 and pkey2 = '3';
- NOTICE: check_pkeys_fkey_cascade: 1 tuple(s) of fkeys are deleted
ERROR: check_fkeys2_fkey_restrict: tuple referenced in fkeys
delete from pkeys where pkey1 = 40 and pkey2 = '4';
- NOTICE: check_pkeys_fkey_cascade: 1 tuple(s) of fkeys are deleted
- NOTICE: check_pkeys_fkey_cascade: 1 tuple(s) of fkeys2 are deleted
update pkeys set pkey1 = 7, pkey2 = '70' where pkey1 = 50 and pkey2 = '5';
- NOTICE: check_pkeys_fkey_cascade: 1 tuple(s) of fkeys are deleted
ERROR: check_fkeys2_fkey_restrict: tuple referenced in fkeys
update pkeys set pkey1 = 7, pkey2 = '70' where pkey1 = 10 and pkey2 = '1';
- NOTICE: check_pkeys_fkey_cascade: 1 tuple(s) of fkeys are deleted
- NOTICE: check_pkeys_fkey_cascade: 1 tuple(s) of fkeys2 are deleted
DROP TABLE pkeys;
DROP TABLE fkeys;
DROP TABLE fkeys2;
--- 75,85 ----

Tom, the timestamp and horology passes on RH 7.3 here. Which is nice. Will
try 8.0 tomorrow at work.

RPMs will be uploaded either tonight or tomorrow morning after I get to work;
it will depend on how much upload bandwidth I can get out of this dialup. It
appears to be running OK, so I may let it run.....
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2002-10-03 04:39:13 Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-10-03 03:52:35 Re: v7.2.3 - tag'd, packaged ... need it checked ...