Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What's wrong with > warning message if GiST test not passed ? You're being *way* too optimistic. An output discrepancy in a test of GIST we could live with. But think about other scenarios: 1. GIST test coredumps on some platforms. This corrupts other tests (at least through the "system is starting up" failure mode), thus masking problems that we actually care about. 2. GIST test code does not compile on some platforms, causing "make check" to fail completely. At this point my vote is to leave the GIST test in contrib for 7.1. Anyone who actually cares about GIST (to be blunt: all three of you) can run it as a separate step. I don't want it in the standard regress tests until 7.2, when we will have a reasonable amount of time to test and debug the test. regards, tom lane
- [HACKERS] Re: Getting configur... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Getting conf... Patrick Welche
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Getting conf... Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] R-Tree implementatio... Oleg Bartunov
- Re: [HACKERS] R-Tree implement... Bruce Momjian
- RE: AW: [HACKERS] Re: GiST for 7.1 !! Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: AW: [HACKERS] Re: GiST for 7.1 !! Oleg Bartunov
- RE: AW: [HACKERS] Re: GiST for 7.1 !! Oleg Bartunov
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: GiST for 7.1 !! Hannu Krosing
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: GiST for 7.1 !! Oleg Bartunov
- Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: AW: [HAC... Tom Lane
- Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: AW: ... The Hermit Hacker
- Re: Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: ... Tom Lane
- Re: Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: ... The Hermit Hacker
- Re: Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: ... Bruce Momjian
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: GiST for... Bruce Momjian
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: GiST for 7.1... The Hermit Hacker
- RE: AW: [HACKERS] Re: GiST for 7.1 !! The Hermit Hacker