Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On Thursday 05 April 2007 16:28, Larry Rosenman wrote: > I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here > tomorrow. > > My question still stands on what OS's we need coverage for. One I see as missing right now is Solaris 10 X86 with gcc building 64bit binaries (we have more than one member building with SunStudio 11) > > -- > Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler > Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:18 PM > To: Larry Rosenman > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for? > > > It will have CentOS 4.4 X86_64 as the base os with VMWare Server running > > on it. > > > > > > > > I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS's in VM's as buildfarm clients. > > > > > > > > What OS's do we need coverage for? > > CentOS5 hits ina couple days. > > J > > > LER > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler > > > > Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Tom Lane wrote: Larry Rosenman writes: I think I'll be able to set up my HP-UX 11.11 box here, as soon as it gets fixed, and assuming either the bundled compiler will work or I can get GCC on it. If the bundled compiler is still the same non-ANSI-C weakling that was bundled in HPUX 10, there's no chance. It would be great to have a buildfarm member using HP's real ANSI-spec C compiler though. I still do a lot of my own development on HPUX 10 + gcc, so I'm not particularly worried about lack of that combination in the buildfarm. Looks like we are a DSPP member, so I might be able to get the aCC bundle for free, and if so, I'll set it up with that. Thanks, LER regards, tom lane -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Larry Rosenman writes: > I think I'll be able to set up my HP-UX 11.11 box here, as soon as it gets > fixed, and assuming either the bundled compiler will work or I can get > GCC on it. If the bundled compiler is still the same non-ANSI-C weakling that was bundled in HPUX 10, there's no chance. It would be great to have a buildfarm member using HP's real ANSI-spec C compiler though. I still do a lot of my own development on HPUX 10 + gcc, so I'm not particularly worried about lack of that combination in the buildfarm. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Adrian Maier wrote: I have access to a PA-RISC machine running HP-UX 11.11. Unfortunately the machine is on a dedicated network and has no Internet access. It should be possible to create a mirror of the CVS repository on my machine (which has access to both the Internet and the dedicated network) so that the HP-UX server could get the sources from my machine. But I am not sure whether the results could be reported back to the buildfarm. The buildfarm has support for reporting via a proxy server. An appropriately configured instance of squid on the same machine that has the CVS mirror should do the trick. Look for BF_PROXY in the buildfarm config file. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Adrian Maier wrote: > The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, > especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story. there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms that might be a win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing. Hello, I have access to a PA-RISC machine running HP-UX 11.11. Unfortunately the machine is on a dedicated network and has no Internet access. It should be possible to create a mirror of the CVS repository on my machine (which has access to both the Internet and the dedicated network) so that the HP-UX server could get the sources from my machine. But I am not sure whether the results could be reported back to the buildfarm. I think I'll be able to set up my HP-UX 11.11 box here, as soon as it gets fixed, and assuming either the bundled compiler will work or I can get GCC on it. This will take a week or 2, but I have permission now. (This box can get out to the internet via our proxy). LER Cheers, Adrian Maier -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
> The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, > especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story. there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms that might be a win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing. Hello, I have access to a PA-RISC machine running HP-UX 11.11. Unfortunately the machine is on a dedicated network and has no Internet access. It should be possible to create a mirror of the CVS repository on my machine (which has access to both the Internet and the dedicated network) so that the HP-UX server could get the sources from my machine. But I am not sure whether the results could be reported back to the buildfarm. Cheers, Adrian Maier ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Josh Berkus wrote: Folks, I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts. IMO, the Solaris one is probably more important than NetBSD. Solaris is taken care of ... should be online in a week or two. Sun DBTG Q.A. set up in the Sun labs: Solaris 9 + Sparc + SunCC Solaris 8 + Sparc + SunCC Solaris 10 + Sparc + SunCC Solaris 10 + x86 + SunCC Solaris 10 + x86 + gcc Solaris Nevada + Sparc + SunCC Solaris Nevada + x86 + SunCC Solaris Nevada + x86 + gcc ... which ought to cover most of the platforms we're interested in from Solaris. The 8 and 9 machines will just build current, but the 10 and Nevada machines will build CVS, 8.1, 8.2 and rotationally older versions (once each week). We're building in as many options as we have support for, including perl, kerberos (on Nevada), Dtrace (on 8.2) and integer-datetimes. Given Sun handling Solaris, my question is: 1) what os(s) do we need more coverage on 2) what collection of options for OS' in 1? LER -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Folks, > > I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts. > > IMO, the Solaris one is probably more important than NetBSD. Solaris is taken care of ... should be online in a week or two. Sun DBTG Q.A. set up in the Sun labs: Solaris 9 + Sparc + SunCC Solaris 8 + Sparc + SunCC Solaris 10 + Sparc + SunCC Solaris 10 + x86 + SunCC Solaris 10 + x86 + gcc Solaris Nevada + Sparc + SunCC Solaris Nevada + x86 + SunCC Solaris Nevada + x86 + gcc ... which ought to cover most of the platforms we're interested in from Solaris. The 8 and 9 machines will just build current, but the 10 and Nevada machines will build CVS, 8.1, 8.2 and rotationally older versions (once each week). We're building in as many options as we have support for, including perl, kerberos (on Nevada), Dtrace (on 8.2) and integer-datetimes. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, I think we are more in need of coverage of different configure-option
sets than of OS's per se.
If someone would like to put together a list of gaps we can see what we
can do about it.
For anyone who wants the data on what is being built currently, the
dashboard data is available via SOAP interface. An example client to
fetch the data is below.
cheers
andrew
--
|#!/usr/bin/perl
use SOAP::Lite;
my $obj = SOAP::Lite
->uri('http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/PGBuildFarm')
->proxy('http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status_soap.pl')
;
my $data = $obj->get_status->result;
# you now have the data. One example of how to use it is below.
my @fields = qw(
branch sysname stage status
operating_system os_version
compiler compiler_version architecture
when_ago snapshot build_flags
);
my $head = join (' | ', @fields);
print $head,"\n";
foreach my $datum (@$data)
{
my $line = join (' | ', @[EMAIL PROTECTED]);
print $line,"\n";
}
|
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Larry Rosenman writes: > I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project with > what > X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for. FWIW, I think we are more in need of coverage of different configure-option sets than of OS's per se. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
> --- Original Message --- > From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 06/04/07, 15:33:20 > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for? > > yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other I'm awaiting an animal for 2k3R2/VC++ Express, and have a Vista/Visual Studio VM almost ready as well. /D ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively. I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit harder than on Unix platforms. yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other random thoughts might include: *) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel c compiler) *) recent netbsd/amd64 *) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio *) maybe solaris express/opensolaris? *) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts. IMO, the Solaris one is probably more important than NetBSD. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Larry Rosenman wrote: It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned. I use VMWare extensively in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things related to that as well. The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare Server as it's virtualization platform. I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project with what X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for. VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively. I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit harder than on Unix platforms. yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other random thoughts might include: *) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel c compiler) *) recent netbsd/amd64 *) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio *) maybe solaris express/opensolaris? *) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts. though generally the x86/x64_86 coverage seems to be quite good The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story. there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms that might be a win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing. Stefan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Larry Rosenman wrote: It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned. I use VMWare extensively in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things related to that as well. The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare Server as it's virtualization platform. I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project with what X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for. VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively. I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit harder than on Unix platforms. If someone wants to supply the appropriate licenses, I would be willing to run windows VM's on this beast. I don't have the free cash to pony up the licenses. The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story. I'm seeing if I can use some HP-UX boxes I have at the office to supply HP-UX 11.11 PA-800's. No guarantees at this point, but I am asking. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Larry Rosenman wrote: >> It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned. I use VMWare >> extensively >> in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things >> related >> to that as well. The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare >> Server >> as it's virtualization platform. >> >> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project >> with what >> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for. >> >> > > VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively. > > I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has > one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not > quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in > either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit > harder than on Unix platforms. yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other random thoughts might include: *) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel c compiler) *) recent netbsd/amd64 *) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio *) maybe solaris express/opensolaris? *) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all though generally the x86/x64_86 coverage seems to be quite good > > The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, > especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story. there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms that might be a win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing. Stefan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Larry Rosenman wrote: It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned. I use VMWare extensively in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things related to that as well. The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare Server as it's virtualization platform. I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project with what X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for. VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively. I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit harder than on Unix platforms. The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Matthew O'Connor wrote: Devrim G??nd??z wrote: Hi, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:23 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in, so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it. ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows). I may be wrong but I thought that the guest OS kernel only needs special support if the underlying CPU doesn't have virtualization support which pretty much all the new Intel and AMD chips have. No? It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned. I use VMWare extensively in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things related to that as well. The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare Server as it's virtualization platform. I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project with what X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for. LER ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:28:39PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: > I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here > tomorrow. > > My question still stands on what OS's we need coverage for. I can provide coverage of SuSE Enterprise 9/10 on i386/x86_64. I just filled out the form on the buildfarm page, so I'm awaiting further instructions -- Paul Lindner| | | | | | | | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpVCtLZQqW0p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Hi, ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows). I may be wrong but I thought that the guest OS kernel only needs special support if the underlying CPU doesn't have virtualization support which pretty much all the new Intel and AMD chips have. No? You need that CPU support if you want to do full virtualization at all. Otherwise you can only use para-virtualization. Para-virtualization has much better performance, but full virtualization is more flexible because you don't need special kernel support in the guest. - Sander ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Devrim Gündüz wrote: Hi, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:23 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in, so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it. ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows). I may be wrong but I thought that the guest OS kernel only needs special support if the underlying CPU doesn't have virtualization support which pretty much all the new Intel and AMD chips have. No? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
On 4/6/07, Larry Rosenman wrote: I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS's in VM's as buildfarm clients. What OS's do we need coverage for? Cannot say about OS, but could you run it with Python 2.5? 64bit interface changed there and it would be interesting to see if it still works. -- marko ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Hi, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:23 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > > The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in, > so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it. ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows). Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.CommandPrompt.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Larry Rosenman wrote: I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here tomorrow. The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in, so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
ler@lerctr.org ("Larry Rosenman") writes:
> I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here
> tomorrow.
>
> My question still stands on what OS's we need coverage for.
I've got Debian testing/unstable covered. I'm not sure we have
Novell/SuSE covered...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxdatabases.info")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/emacs.html
"Motto for a research laboratory: What we work on today, others will
first think of tomorrow." -- Alan J. Perlis
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here tomorrow. My question still stands on what OS's we need coverage for. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:18 PM To: Larry Rosenman Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for? > > It will have CentOS 4.4 X86_64 as the base os with VMWare Server running > on it. > > > > I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS's in VM's as buildfarm clients. > > > > What OS's do we need coverage for? CentOS5 hits ina couple days. J > > > > LER > > > > > > -- > > Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler > > Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org > > US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 > > > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
It will have CentOS 4.4 X86_64 as the base os with VMWare Server running on it. I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS’s in VM’s as buildfarm clients. What OS’s do we need coverage for? CentOS5 hits ina couple days. J LER -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
[HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
I'm in the process of building a new box that will have Dual Xeon 5120's (Dual Core), and 4G of ram and 2.4T of disk (6x400G SATA). It will have CentOS 4.4 X86_64 as the base os with VMWare Server running on it. I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS's in VM's as buildfarm clients. What OS's do we need coverage for? LER -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
