Re: [HACKERS] regression failures on WIndows in machines with some non-English

2005-10-31 Thread Petr Jelinek
Tom Lane wrote: The simple solution seems to be to add --no-locale to the initdb args in pg_regress.sh. Er ... what exactly does that do that setting LC_ALL=C doesn't? Windows are ignoring locale enviroment variables so you can't do that -- Regards Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS) ---

Re: [HACKERS] regression failures on WIndows in machines with some non-English locales

2005-10-31 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The simple solution seems to be to add --no-locale to the initdb args in > pg_regress.sh. Er ... what exactly does that do that setting LC_ALL=C doesn't? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)-

[HACKERS] regression failures on WIndows in machines with some non-English locales

2005-10-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I have become aware that regression is failing due to ordering differences on Windows machines in some non-English locales (specifically, Czech, but the potential is there for more failures). The problem seems to be that the regression suite and initdb don't do enough between them to ensure

Re: [HACKERS] Regression failures: time, timetz, horology

2005-05-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm getting time, timetz, and horology regression failures in HEAD > > on Solaris 9 / gcc 3.4.2. So are other machines in the build farm, > > such as this one: > > I'll bet a nickel this broke it: > > 2005-05-25 23:48 momjian > >

Re: [HACKERS] Regression failures: time, timetz, horology

2005-05-26 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm getting time, timetz, and horology regression failures in HEAD > on Solaris 9 / gcc 3.4.2. So are other machines in the build farm, > such as this one: I'll bet a nickel this broke it: 2005-05-25 23:48 momjian * src/: backend/utils/adt/dat

[HACKERS] Regression failures: time, timetz, horology

2005-05-26 Thread Michael Fuhr
I'm getting time, timetz, and horology regression failures in HEAD on Solaris 9 / gcc 3.4.2. So are other machines in the build farm, such as this one: http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=shark&dt=2005-05-26%2004:21:00 I'm getting the same regression failures shown in that link; he

Re: [HACKERS] Regression failures on freebsd

2005-04-13 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:52:11AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > I did 'gmake distclean' and rebuild and I still get the attached failures. What versions of PostgreSQL and FreeBSD? The FreeBSD machines in the buildfarm look good. http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl If

Re: [HACKERS] Regression failures on freebsd

2005-04-13 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Do you build in a separate directory? I do and I do have problems when the grammars (main or plpgsql) get updated -- not sure why the derived files from bison and flex don't get rebuilt. I just delete them by hand. (The build directory I just rm -fr as a whole). Yours doesn't seem like a problem

Re: [HACKERS] Regression failures on freebsd

2005-04-13 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:52:11AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > I did 'gmake distclean' and rebuild and I still get the attached failures. Do you build in a separate directory? I do and I do have problems when the grammars (main or plpgsql) get updated -- not sure why the derived files

[HACKERS] Regression failures on freebsd

2005-04-13 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
I did 'gmake distclean' and rebuild and I still get the attached failures. Chris parallel group (13 tests): text name char varchar boolean oid int8 int2 float4 int4 float8 bit numeric boolean ... ok char ... ok name ... ok varchar

Re: [HACKERS] regression failures

2002-11-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, regression tests adjusted and cat version updated. --- Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> There should have been a catversion bump for the domain-constraints > >> patch, but

Re: [HACKERS] regression failures

2002-11-23 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> There should have been a catversion bump for the domain-constraints >> patch, but there wasn't. When was your previous CVS pull? > Several days ago at least. Then you probably got bit by that patch --- it was applied a couple days ago.

Re: [HACKERS] regression failures

2002-11-23 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: There should have been a catversion bump for the domain-constraints patch, but there wasn't. When was your previous CVS pull? Several days ago at least. I use cvsup every few days to sync up. Is there a way I can tell exactly when? Joe ---(end of bro

Re: [HACKERS] regression failures

2002-11-23 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I guess a recent change requires an initdb but no change was forced? There should have been a catversion bump for the domain-constraints patch, but there wasn't. When was your previous CVS pull? regards, tom lane -

Re: [HACKERS] regression failures

2002-11-23 Thread Rod Taylor
On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 01:04, Joe Conway wrote: > I'm getting lots of regression failures: > > > 25 of 89 tests failed. > > > all pretty much looking like: > >SELECT '' AS one, o.* FROM OID_TBL o WHERE o.f1 = 1234; > ! ERROR: Relation "pg_c

[HACKERS] regression failures

2002-11-22 Thread Joe Conway
I'm getting lots of regression failures: 25 of 89 tests failed. all pretty much looking like: SELECT '' AS one, o.* FROM OID_TBL o WHERE o.f1 = 1234; ! ERROR: Relation "pg_constraint_contypid_index" does not exist SELECT '' AS five, o.* FRO