On 26 Dec 2000 at 23:41 (-0500), Tom Lane wrote: | Brent Verner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | Please apply it locally and let me know what you find. | | > what I'm seeing now is much the same. sorry, I sent the previous email w/o the details of the different behavior. Inside ExecEvalFieldSelect(), result is now 303, instead of 110599844 (...or whatever is was). I'm not sure if this gives you any additional clues. thanks. brent
- [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha Brent Verner
- [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha Brent Verner
- [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha Brent Verner
- [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha Brent Verner
- [HACKERS] Tuple-valued datums on ... Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: Tuple-valued datums... Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Tuple-valued da... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Tuple-valued da... Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Tuple-valued da... Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Tuple-valued da... Tom Lane
- Re: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] Re: T... Tom Lane
- Re: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] Re: T... Brent Verner
- Re: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] Re: T... Oliver Elphick
- Re: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] Re: T... Tom Lane
- Re: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] Re: T... Oliver Elphick
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Tuple-valued da... Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Tuple-valued da... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha Brent Verner