Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-22 Thread Patrick Welche
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:41:55AM -0700, Henry B. Hotz wrote: > At 1:50 AM -0400 4/6/01, Tom Lane wrote: ... > >What version of libreadline do you have installed, and how does it > >declare completion_matches()? > > I have whatever is standard on NetBSD 1.5. I noticed that configure > found a

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-13 Thread Patrick Welche
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 01:25:45PM +, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > Did we decide that "most NetBSD/i386 users have fpus" in which case Marko's > > patch should be applied? > > I'm unclear on what y'all mean by "i386 + fpu", especially since NetBSD > seems to insist on calling every Intel proces

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-13 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> Did we decide that "most NetBSD/i386 users have fpus" in which case Marko's > patch should be applied? I'm unclear on what y'all mean by "i386 + fpu", especially since NetBSD seems to insist on calling every Intel processor a "i386". In this case, are you suggesting that this patch covers all N

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-10 Thread Giles Lean
> At 1:50 AM -0400 4/6/01, Tom Lane wrote: > >"Henry B. Hotz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Bottom line: 7.1RC1 passes most of the regression tests on > > > NetBSD/macppc. > > > >The only thing that surprised me here was all of the warnings from > >libreadline calls: > > > > >> tab-complete.

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-09 Thread Henry B. Hotz
At 1:50 AM -0400 4/6/01, Tom Lane wrote: >"Henry B. Hotz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Bottom line: 7.1RC1 passes most of the regression tests on > > NetBSD/macppc. > >The only thing that surprised me here was all of the warnings from >libreadline calls: > > >> tab-complete.c: In function `ini

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-07 Thread Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On such a platform it would hardly be possible to detect anything with any > reliably. A linker that links a program "succesfully" while the program > really needs more libraries to be runnable isn't very useful. You're right, of course -- it's a b

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes: > Giles Lean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It is still necessary to add -ltermcap after -ledit in > > src/Makefile.global to have functional history editing in psql. > > This is a weakness in the configure script: it goes through a loop > where it tries to link a pr

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-07 Thread Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Giles Lean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is still necessary to add -ltermcap after -ledit in > src/Makefile.global to have functional history editing in psql. This is a weakness in the configure script: it goes through a loop where it tries to link a program that calls readline() with, in ord

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-06 Thread Giles Lean
> Thanks! I'm not too worried about 1.4.2, but be sure to let us know what > the problem was; it may help out someone else... NetBSD-1.4.2/i386 passes all tests with 7.1RC3. My previous test failure on this platform was due to the timezone information on the test system not being standard; once

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-06 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> If somethings happen this weekend, I *MAY* have a HP9000/433s (M68K) > running NetBSD to play with That would be great. I *know* that there are some m68k machines around somewhere on this planet, and it would be a shame to not have NetBSD tested for the release... -

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-05 Thread Tom Lane
"Henry B. Hotz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bottom line: 7.1RC1 passes most of the regression tests on > NetBSD/macppc. The only thing that surprised me here was all of the warnings from libreadline calls: >> tab-complete.c: In function `initialize_readline': >> tab-complete.c:103: warning:

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-05 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> Bottom line: 7.1RC1 passes most of the regression tests on > NetBSD/macppc. It's probably good enough for normal use since the > differences are not extensive, but someone would need to look at the > diff's for longer than the 10 seconds or so I've spent so far, and > someone should actually s

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-05 Thread Henry B. Hotz
Bottom line: 7.1RC1 passes most of the regression tests on NetBSD/macppc. It's probably good enough for normal use since the differences are not extensive, but someone would need to look at the diff's for longer than the 10 seconds or so I've spent so far, and someone should actually set it

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-01 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > I've once again got a VAX that should be able to run PostgreSQL on > > NetBSD/vax, so I hope to be able to help revitalize that port soon... > It still works. RC1 configures, compiles and runs on my VAX 4000/500 > with NetBSD-current -- but the regression tests give a lot of failures > becaus

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-01 Thread Tom Lane
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, dynamic loading now works on NetBSD/vax, so my old #ifdef for > that in the backend/port/bsd.c file, which has since propagated into > the new *bsd.c files, can go away. Patch applied, thanks. regards, tom lane -

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-04-01 Thread Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We need some NetBSD folks to speak up! > > I've once again got a VAX that should be able to run PostgreSQL on > NetBSD/vax, so I hope to be able to help revitalize that port soon... It still works. RC1 configures, compiles and runs on my VAX 4

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-30 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> Yep. We have many other MIPS (ONYX Crimson, , ONYX, Challenge, Indy w/ IRIX > 6.2, 6.5, etc.), Alpha and Sparc platforms if there are some others that need > testing (How about NetBSD on NeXT?). All of these are interesting to help others decide whether their particular machine is supported.

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-30 Thread Mark Knox
At 11:06 PM 3/28/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >Mark Knox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I don't think this solution would be valid on many other platforms. > >Au contraire --- the ARM is the first platform I've heard of that does >not think sizeof(ItemPointerData) is 6. Else we'd have seen this >reg

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-30 Thread Local
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:57:45 -0500 (EST), Bruce Momjian alluded: > > We just fixed that yesterday. Can you grab the most recent CVS and give > it a try? Yep. We have many other MIPS (ONYX Crimson, , ONYX, Challenge, Indy w/ IRIX 6.2, 6.5, etc.), Alpha and Sparc platforms if there are some

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-29 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Knox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, this patch seems to produce attlens of 6 as desired, but it > causes many (13) of the regression tests to fail. Do you want to see > the regression.diffs? >> >> Please. > See attached. Does look pretty broken, but I don't see how my idea would have

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-28 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Knox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think this solution would be valid on many other platforms. Au contraire --- the ARM is the first platform I've heard of that does not think sizeof(ItemPointerData) is 6. Else we'd have seen this regress test fail before. > Well, this patch seems

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-28 Thread Mark Knox
At 12:27 AM 3/28/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >That would fix it for ARM but not for anyplace else with similar >alignment behavior. Would you try this patch instead to see what >happens? I don't think this solution would be valid on many other platforms. It forces the structure to not be padded,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> What gcc version does that platform have? > > > gcc version egcs-2.90.25 980302 (egcs-1.0.2 prerelease) > > Can you try a known-stable gcc version? 2.95.2 say? I don't have time right know. Will do maybe for 7.1.1 or 7.2.. -- Tatsuo Ishii --

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What gcc version does that platform have? > gcc version egcs-2.90.25 980302 (egcs-1.0.2 prerelease) Can you try a known-stable gcc version? 2.95.2 say? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> I think you've got a badly broken compiler there. There's no way that > ExecReplace should be entered for a SELECT. The backtrace is wrong on > its face anyway --- ExecutePlan does not call itself. Yes, I have suspected that. > What gcc version does that platform have? gcc version egcs-2.90

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > mklinux PPC750 7.0 2000-04-13, Tatsuo Ishii > If compiled with -O2 or -O2 -g, I got 10 tests FAILED. misc test > failed due to a backend crash. The SQL caused the crash was: > select i, length(t), octet_length(t), oldstyle_length(i,t) from > oldst

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
"Mark Knox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > { > BlockIdData ip_blkid; > OffsetNumber ip_posid; > +#ifdef __arm__ > +} __attribute__((packed)) ItemPointerData; > +#else > } > +#endif That would fix it for ARM but not for anyplace else with similar alignment behavior. Would you try thi

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Mark Knox
The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your s

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Mark Knox
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 27 Mar 2001, at 20:49, Mark Knox wrote: > > > I suspect it might be an alignment problem > > > > Sort of. I am suspicious that sizeof(ItemPointerData) is returning > > 8 rather than 6 as one might expect. > > Maybe it's padding the structure to a dword bo

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Mark Knox
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 26 Mar 2001, at 23:14, Tom Lane wrote: > "Mark Knox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 25 Mar 2001, at 16:07, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Does that database have any user-created relations in it, or is it > >> just a virgin database? > > > Totally virgin. I creat

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> > mklinux PPC750 7.0 2000-04-13, Tatsuo Ishii > > > > Any luck with RC1? > > I will try today or tomorrow... In summary no, improvemnets seen. If compiled with -O2 or -O2 -g, I got 10 tests FAILED. misc test failed due to a backend crash. The SQL caused the crash was: select i, length(t

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread thomas graichen
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> NetBSD Sparc 7.0 2000-04-13, Tom I. Helbekkmo > Fetching the latest source kit now -- hope to have regression tests > run and a report back to you within a day or two. >> We need some NetBSD fol

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Even if you fix this it won't work (I tried it). Robert mailed > why. Check the URL below for more information. It crashes on semctl :( > http://freeware.sgi.com/shared/howto.html#b1 Ugh. Given the semctl compatibility problem, I suspect we'd better

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
I wrote: > > NetBSD Sparc 7.0 2000-04-13, Tom I. Helbekkmo > > Fetching the latest source kit now -- hope to have regression tests > run and a report back to you within a day or two. Hmm. No go here: everything looks peachy until I've started the postmaster, and attempt to connect to it:

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
"Mayers, Philip J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've already reported this to the webpage, but I got a fail on the random > test: > random ... failed (ignored) See http://www.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/postgres/regress.html especially the last item ...

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Mathijs Brands
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:57:45AM -0500, Bruce Momjian allegedly wrote: > We just fixed that yesterday. Can you grab the most recent CVS and give > it a try? Even if you fix this it won't work (I tried it). Robert mailed why. Check the URL below for more information. It crashes on semctl :( ht

RE: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Mayers, Philip J
I've already reported this to the webpage, but I got a fail on the random test: random ... failed (ignored) This is on a stock RedHat 7.0 kernel box with the SMP kernel (but running a single processor): [pjm3@localhost regress]$ less regression.diffs *** ./expected/random.out

Re: Regression test on FBSD 3.3 & 4.2, IRIX 6.5 (was Re: [HACKERS]Re: Call for platforms)

2001-03-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Mathijs Brands writes: > I just tried to compile 7.1RC1 on my IRIX 6.5 box using gcc 2.95.2. According to the information at http://freeware.sgi.com/shared/howto.html#b1 it probably won't work to compile PostgreSQL with GCC on Irix. Or it might work and crash when run. Be warned. (I think it i

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > s_lock.c:235: parse error before `_volatile__' That typo is fixed in current sources (should be OK in last night's snapshot) but there's still some doubt as to how well the MIPS assembly code works ... regards, tom lane --

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
We just fixed that yesterday. Can you grab the most recent CVS and give it a try? > One that didn't compilei RC1: > > BIGBOY 71# uname -a > IRIX BIGBOY 6.5 05190003 IP22 > > On an Indigo2 (R4000), gcc 2.95.2 , with the following error: > > gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarati

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Jeff Duffy
One that didn't compilei RC1: BIGBOY 71# uname -a IRIX BIGBOY 6.5 05190003 IP22 On an Indigo2 (R4000), gcc 2.95.2 , with the following error: gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -I../../../../src/include -U_NO_XOPEN4 -c s_lock.c -o s_lock.o s_lock.c: In function `s_lock':

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Mark Knox
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 25 Mar 2001, at 16:07, Tom Lane wrote: > Does that database have any user-created relations in it, or is it > just a virgin database? It seems that the wrong attlen is being > computed for ctid fields during bootstrap, but the regression test > output (if i

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Henry B. Hotz
At 5:14 PM + 3/26/01, Thomas Lockhart wrote: >NetBSD m68k7.0 2000-04-10, Henry B. Hotz I no longer have a 68k machine that's fast enough to reasonably test PG on. I have a IIcx that sometimes serves as a router, but I'm using some second-generation powermac's mostly now. (You sti

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Mathijs Brands
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:36:37AM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain allegedly wrote: > Thus spake Tom Ivar Helbekkmo > > > We need some NetBSD folks to speak up! > > I have successfully compiled it from CVS sources on my NetBSD -current but > I can't find the tar file for RC1 to try it with the package sy

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
Thus spake Tom Ivar Helbekkmo > > We need some NetBSD folks to speak up! I have successfully compiled it from CVS sources on my NetBSD -current but I can't find the tar file for RC1 to try it with the package system. Can someone point me to it please. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain| Democracy is thr

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> mklinux PPC750 7.0 2000-04-13, Tatsuo Ishii > > Any luck with RC1? I will try today or tomorrow... -- Tatsuo Ishii ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMA

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
"Mark Knox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 25 Mar 2001, at 16:07, Tom Lane wrote: >> Does that database have any user-created relations in it, or is it >> just a virgin database? > Totally virgin. I created it just for that select you wanted. Okay. Would you create a couple of random tables

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > NetBSD Sparc 7.0 2000-04-13, Tom I. Helbekkmo Fetching the latest source kit now -- hope to have regression tests run and a report back to you within a day or two. > We need some NetBSD folks to speak up! I've once again got a VAX that should

Re: Regression test on FBSD 3.3 & 4.2, IRIX 6.5 (was Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms)

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Notice the single underscore before volatile. That's definitely wrong --- fixed. > Fixing this causes > as (the SGI version, not GNU as) to choke on the '.global tas' statement. > s_lock.c: At top level: > s_lock.c:234: warning: `tas_dummy' defined b

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Peter Bierman
At 7:53 PM -0500 3/26/01, Tom Lane wrote: >Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> "PPC750"? What's that? "PPC G3" might be more likely to mean something >>> to onlookers ... > >> Actually "G3" means nothing outside of Apple afaict. The 750 series is a >> follow-on to the 60x series, and

Regression test on FBSD 3.3 & 4.2, IRIX 6.5 (was Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms)

2001-03-26 Thread Mathijs Brands
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 07:09:38PM -0500, Tom Lane allegedly wrote: > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That is not already available from the Irix support code? > > What we have for IRIX is > > #if defined(__sgi) > /* > * SGI IRIX 5 > * slock_t is defined as a unsigned long. We

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Mathijs Brands
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:01:24PM +1000, Justin Clift allegedly wrote: > I know that Sourceforge has been adding all sorts of machines to their > compile farm. > > Maybe it would be worthwhile taking a look if they have platforms we > don't? > > Regards and best wishes, > > Justin Clift Compa

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Justin Clift
I know that Sourceforge has been adding all sorts of machines to their compile farm. Maybe it would be worthwhile taking a look if they have platforms we don't? Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > > The non-test-and-set case should work again in current CVS, and I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Justin Clift
Hi, I tested Solaris 8 SPARC (32 bit) over the weekend, and can test Solaris 8 INTEL this week/weekend. The results of Solaris 8 SPARC were in Vince's database last time I checked. ??? + Justin Mathijs Brands wrote: > > Hi > > Is there a list somewhere listing the platforms 7.1 is being > t

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "PPC750"? What's that? "PPC G3" might be more likely to mean something >> to onlookers ... > Actually "G3" means nothing outside of Apple afaict. The 750 series is a > follow-on to the 60x series, and there is a 7xxx series also. From my > pov, usi

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That is not already available from the Irix support code? What we have for IRIX is #if defined(__sgi) /* * SGI IRIX 5 * slock_t is defined as a unsigned long. We use the standard SGI * mutex API. * * The following comment is left for historical

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> The non-test-and-set case should work again in current CVS, and I'd > appreciate it if Alexander would verify that. But as far as getting > some test-and-set support for MIPS goes, it looks like the only way > is for someone to sit down with a MIPS assembly manual. I haven't > got one, nor acc

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Mathijs Brands
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 06:35:59PM -0500, Tom Lane allegedly wrote: > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Anyway, the last CVS update to port/ultrix.h that appears to have come > >> from someone actually using Ultrix was rev 1.2 on 7-May-97, which > >> predates the very existence of s

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> >NetBSD m68k7.0 2000-04-10, Henry B. Hotz > I no longer have a 68k machine that's fast enough to reasonably test > PG on. I have a IIcx that sometimes serves as a router, but I'm > using some second-generation powermac's mostly now. (You still have > that Centris in your closet Tom?)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Anyway, the last CVS update to port/ultrix.h that appears to have come >> from someone actually using Ultrix was rev 1.2 on 7-May-97, which >> predates the very existence of s_lock.h as a separate file. So I'd >> definitely advise Alexander to find a

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Lamar Owen
Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Did you get the message from Trond about Linux 2.4 x86? I can also > > verify all tests passed on a RedHat Public Beta installation with kernel > > 2.4. > I haven't put those in the list yet... I'll wait until we release

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
Mathijs Brands wrote: > > Hi > > Is there a list somewhere listing the platforms 7.1 is being > tested on right now? I'd be able to run regression tests on > the following platforms, if necessary: http://www.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/admin/supported-platforms.html is close to up to date

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Mathijs Brands
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 05:41:31PM -0500, Vince Vielhaber allegedly wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Mathijs Brands wrote: > > Hi > > > > Is there a list somewhere listing the platforms 7.1 is being > > tested on right now? I'd be able to run regression tests on > > the following platforms, if necess

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Vince Vielhaber
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Mathijs Brands wrote: > Hi > > Is there a list somewhere listing the platforms 7.1 is being > tested on right now? I'd be able to run regression tests on > the following platforms, if necessary: > > FreeBSD 3.3 (x86) > FreeBSD 4.2 (x86) > Linux (x86 - 2.2 & 2.4 kernels

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> Did you get the message from Trond about Linux 2.4 x86? I can also > verify all tests passed on a RedHat Public Beta installation with kernel > 2.4. Trond had indicated that it was a 2.4.2 kernel with lots 'o patches, so I figured I'd show the released stuff for now. I mentioned 2.4.2 in the c

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > Linux 2.2.x Alpha 7.1 2001-01-23, Ryan Kirkpatrick > > Linux 2.2.x armv4l 7.1 2001-03-22, Mark Knox > > Linux 2.2.18 PPC750 7.1 2001-03-19, Tom Lane > > Linux 2.2.x S/390 7.1 2000-11-17, Neale Ferguson > > Linux 2.2.15 Sparc 7.

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Lamar Owen
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > Linux 2.2.x Alpha 7.1 2001-01-23, Ryan Kirkpatrick > Linux 2.2.x armv4l 7.1 2001-03-22, Mark Knox > Linux 2.2.18 PPC750 7.1 2001-03-19, Tom Lane > Linux 2.2.x S/390 7.1 2000-11-17, Neale Ferguson > Linux 2.2.15 Sparc 7.1 2001-01-30, Ryan Kirkpatrick > Linux 2.2.16 x86

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Mathijs Brands
Hi Is there a list somewhere listing the platforms 7.1 is being tested on right now? I'd be able to run regression tests on the following platforms, if necessary: FreeBSD 3.3 (x86) FreeBSD 4.2 (x86) Linux (x86 - 2.2 & 2.4 kernels, Redhat & Debian distro's) Solaris 7 (SPARC) Solaris 8 (

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Karl DeBisschop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In my tests on sparc/7 my compile died at line 3088 of > postgresql-7.1beta6/src/interfaces/python/pgmodule.c: > ./pgmodule.c:3088: parse error before `init_pg' > That's line 3137 of today's (22Mar) snapshot, which reads: > /* Initialization functio

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Larry Rosenman
75044-6749 US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 3/26/01, 2:36:19 PM, Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platform

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > > > SCO OpenServer 5 x86 7.1 2001-03-13, Billy Allie > > > Where did you see this? I don't find it in the archives or in Vince's > > > database. > > In FAQ_SCO. I was looking to try to figure out what the differences were > > between the SCO products :) > I wouldn't necessarily count someth

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > As mentioned earlier, Ultrix on RISC means that it is a MIPS processor. > > Any hints for Alexander on how to do it *if* it is a MIPS processor? > Not sure. The only info I see in s_lock.h is in the "SGI" section: > * This stuff may be supplemented in the future with Masato Kataoka's MIPS-II

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> "PPC750"? What's that? "PPC G3" might be more likely to mean something > to onlookers ... Actually "G3" means nothing outside of Apple afaict. The 750 series is a follow-on to the 60x series, and there is a 7xxx series also. From my pov, using an accepted label, rather than a marketing (re)la

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Thomas Lockhart writes: > > > SCO OpenServer 5 x86 7.1 2001-03-13, Billy Allie > > Where did you see this? I don't find it in the archives or in Vince's > > database. > > In FAQ_SCO. I was looking to try to figure out what the differences were > between the SCO products :) I wouldn't necessar

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As mentioned earlier, Ultrix on RISC means that it is a MIPS processor. >> I suspect that some one of the implementations in s_lock.h was intended >> to be usable on Ultrix, and we've somehow dropped the declarations >> needed to make it go. You migh

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Linux 2.2.18 PPC750 7.1 2001-03-19, Tom Lane "PPC750"? What's that? "PPC G3" might be more likely to mean something to onlookers ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Larry Rosenman
ver. LER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 3/26/01, 12:05:55 PM, Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms:

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > SCO OpenServer 5 x86 7.1 2001-03-13, Billy Allie > Where did you see this? I don't find it in the archives or in Vince's > database. In FAQ_SCO. I was looking to try to figure out what the differences were between the SCO products :) - Thomas --

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Thomas Lockhart writes: > SCO OpenServer 5 x86 7.1 2001-03-13, Billy Allie Where did you see this? I don't find it in the archives or in Vince's database. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/ ---(end of broadcast)-

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
The list of unreported or "in progress" platforms has gotten much shorter. If anyone can help on the remaining problems, we'll be able to move closer to release status, which is A Good Thing (tm) ;) btw, if we get most of these qualified, we will be on around 30 platforms -

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-26 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> >> Suddenly I obtain access to > >> ULTRIX black 4.3 1 RISC > > Uh ... what kind of processor is that? Offhand I don't see any > > indication that any of the entries in s_lock.h are supposed to work > > for Ultrix. As mentioned earlier, Ultrix on RISC means that it is a MIPS processor. DEC imp

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Mark Knox
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 25 Mar 2001, at 15:02, Tom Lane wrote: > > (rounding on the final digit) and this rather troubling output from > > type_sanity. > > Most bizarre --- and definitely indicative of trouble. Would you send > along the output of this query in that database: >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Tom Lane
Does that database have any user-created relations in it, or is it just a virgin database? It seems that the wrong attlen is being computed for ctid fields during bootstrap, but the regression test output (if it was complete) implies that the value inserted for user-created fields was OK. This d

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Tom Lane
"Mark Knox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Linux 2.2.x armv4l 7.0 2000-04-17, Mark Knox > Compiled and tested 7.1beta6 tonight. All the regression tests passed > except two - the usual minor differences in geometry (rounding on the > final digit) and this rather troubling output from type_sanit

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Mark Knox
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 22 Mar 2001, at 14:29, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > Linux 2.2.x armv4l 7.0 2000-04-17, Mark Knox Compiled and tested 7.1beta6 tonight. All the regression tests passed except two - the usual minor differences in geometry (rounding on the final digit) and this

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Karl DeBisschop
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > > Solaris x867.0 2000-04-12, Marc Fournier > > > > scrappy, do you still have this machine? > > Doing tests on Solaris x86/7 right now, will report as soon as they are > done ... > > > Solaris 2.5.1-2.7 Sparc

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Tom Lane
> Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Suddenly I obtain access to >> ULTRIX black 4.3 1 RISC > Uh ... what kind of processor is that? Offhand I don't see any > indication that any of the entries in s_lock.h are supposed to work > for Ultrix. On closer look I notice that the putativ

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Doug McNaught
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Suddenly I obtain access to > > ULTRIX black 4.3 1 RISC > > Uh ... what kind of processor is that? Offhand I don't see any > indication that any of the entries in s_lock.h are supposed to work > for Ultrix.

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Tom Lane
Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Suddenly I obtain access to > ULTRIX black 4.3 1 RISC Uh ... what kind of processor is that? Offhand I don't see any indication that any of the entries in s_lock.h are supposed to work for Ultrix. regards, tom lane ---

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-25 Thread Alexander Klimov
Hi all. Suddenly I obtain access to ULTRIX black 4.3 1 RISC I don't shure is it supported, but I see /src/include/port/ultrix4.h file so my guess is `yes, at least was'. I got last version from CVS and try configure && gmake it results in gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-24 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: > = > 1 of 76 tests failed, 1 failed test(s) ignored. > = >> >> That's just ye olde random "random" failure ... > Actually, this is one

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-24 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > > and yet another run (and different results): > > > = > > 1 of 76 tests failed, 1 failed test(s) ignored. > > = > > That's just ye olde random "random" failure ... Actually, this

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-23 Thread Tom Lane
bpalmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > seconds. Most of the time is spent in this test: > parallel group (13 tests): float4 int2 int4 text name varchar oid boolean > char float8 int8 bit numeric > There is a long pause between 'bit' and 'numeric'. Same with on i386. Is > this a problem that i

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-23 Thread bpalmer
> OpenBSD 2.8 x867.1 2001-03-22, Brandon. Palmer OBSD checks out for sparc and i386. We did need to make a change to the resultmap file to make the regression tests clean for the sparc. I have attached the diff. Also, on the sparc that i'm using (sparc4/110), make check takes 1950 se

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-22 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> > I have tested today's snap shot on SunOS4. > > For the regression test, I got 7 failures, most of them seem harmless, > > the only concern I have is bit test though. > > P.S. I'm going to test Linux/MIPS (Cobalt RaQ2) soon... > > Great! I'll update info for SunOS4 (individual problems will

[HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-22 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> I have tested today's snap shot on SunOS4. > For the regression test, I got 7 failures, most of them seem harmless, > the only concern I have is bit test though. > P.S. I'm going to test Linux/MIPS (Cobalt RaQ2) soon... Great! I'll update info for SunOS4 (individual problems will be fixed or

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-22 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Patrick Welche wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:49:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> These are parallel tests right? What's the failure diffs? > > > > > same as last time: > > > > > dragon:/home/centre/marc/src/postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-22 Thread Giles Lean
> NetBSD 2.8 alpha 7.1 2001-03-22, Giles Lean Correction: NetBSD-1.5/alpha. Ciao, Giles ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-22 Thread Patrick Welche
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:49:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> These are parallel tests right? What's the failure diffs? > > > same as last time: > > > dragon:/home/centre/marc/src/postgresql-7.1RC1/src/test/regress> more > > results/opr_sanity.ou

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for platforms

2001-03-22 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > NetBSD 2.8 alpha 7.1 2001-03-22, Giles Lean > Correction: NetBSD-1.5/alpha. Right. That was a typo in transcribing my online copy of the sgml docs to the email. I was hoping no one caught it, and didn't bother sending a correction ;) - Thomas ---(

  1   2   >