Re: [HACKERS] Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems wrong)

2005-11-07 Thread Michael Glaesemann

On Nov 7, 2005, at 18:28 , Michael Paesold wrote:

Ok, forgot. This is *without* integer-datetimes, RHEL 3 (Linux  
2.4.21, glibc 2.3.2, gcc 3.2.3 20030502) on i686 (Xeon without  
x86-64).



I just ran make check on for PostgreSQL 8.1.0 on Mac OS X 10.4.3


Heh. I forgot, too ;) My test was also without integer-datetimes.


[snip]
I didn't have any regression failures. I'd also expect we'd see a  
lot  more failures on the build farm if it were the case that it  
was  broken just on the platform that the expected results were  
generated  on. From a quick look at the current build farm  
failures on HEAD and  REL8_1_STABLE, it doesn't look like any of  
the failures are failing  here.


I just started to wonder about buildfarm, too, but found that most  
build farm members have --enable-integer-datetimes. Could that be  
an explanation? Is it possible that the code is wrong with --enable- 
integer-datetimes?


So what do you have in results/interval.out?
@ 4 years 1 mon 9 days 28 hours 18 mins 23 secs seems wrong to me, no?



select avg(f1) from interval_tbl;
   avg
-
@ 4 years 1 mon 9 days 28 hours 18 mins 23 secs
(1 row)

The point of the change to the interval datatype in 8.1 is to keep  
track of months, days, and seconds (which in turn are represented as  
hours, minutes and seconds). Previous releases tracked only months  
and seconds. This has advantages for using intervals with dates and  
timestamps that involve daylight saving time changes. Admittedly, it  
looks odd at first, but it falls out of the change in behavior of the  
interval datatype. There are two new functions, justify_days and  
justify_hours, that you can use to put intervals into more  
traditional forms.


http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/functions-datetime.html

Doesn't explain why you're getting a regression failure though.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [HACKERS] Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems wrong)

2005-11-07 Thread Michael Glaesemann


On Nov 7, 2005, at 17:24 , Michael Paesold wrote:

Using both PostgreSQL 8.1.0 and CVS current of Nov 7, 9:00 am CET I  
get a regression failure in the interval tests. I am no export for  
the interval type, but the expected "9 days 28 hours" seem wrong,  
don't they? The actual value seems to be the same.


Is it possible that this is broken on the platform where the  
expected results were generated?


What platform are you testing on? With or without integer-datetimes?

I just ran make check on for PostgreSQL 8.1.0 on Mac OS X 10.4.3

test=# select version();

version
 
--
PostgreSQL 8.1.0 on powerpc-apple-darwin8.3.0, compiled by GCC  
powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.0 (GCC) 4.0.0 (Apple Computer, Inc.  
build 5026)


I didn't have any regression failures. I'd also expect we'd see a lot  
more failures on the build farm if it were the case that it was  
broken just on the platform that the expected results were generated  
on. From a quick look at the current build farm failures on HEAD and  
REL8_1_STABLE, it doesn't look like any of the failures are failing  
here.


Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

  http://archives.postgresql.org