On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Namely, should we bundle up a beta4 this weeekend, so that the GiST
> > changes are in place for further testing, or hold off for ... ?
>
> First I'd like to finish a couple of open items I have, like fixing
> Agreed ... now let's move onto more important things, cause we've spent
> much too long on this as it is ...
>
> Namely, should we bundle up a beta4 this weeekend, so that the GiST
> changes are in place for further testing, or hold off for ... ?
I would hold off. GIST people can download the
> 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 debu
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Namely, should we bundle up a beta4 this weeekend, so that the GiST
> changes are in place for further testing, or hold off for ... ?
First I'd like to finish a couple of open items I have, like fixing
the CRIT_SECTION code so that SIGTERM response
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> > >
> > > OK. We found an old implementation of R-Tre using GiST (Pg95)
> > > and we'll try to implement regression test using R-Tree
> > > it's anyway will be a good test.
> >
> > H
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 oth
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >
> > OK. We found an old implementation of R-Tre using GiST (Pg95)
> > and we'll try to implement regression test using R-Tree
> > it's anyway will be a good test.
>
> How is it different than using RD-tree for tests ?
>
No diff
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
> OK. We found an old implementation of R-Tre using GiST (Pg95)
> and we'll try to implement regression test using R-Tree
> it's anyway will be a good test.
How is it different than using RD-tree for tests ?
Can you do it usin already compiled-in functions and modifying
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> regress tests may as well be mainstream? At least in terms of the
> portability requirements it will have to meet?
_If_ we want to have a tested GiST (and not the "probably works but
really has some na
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
>
> > > Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> > > regress tests may as well be mainstream? At least in terms of the
> > > portability requirements it will have to meet?
> > >
OK. We found an old implementation of R-Tre using GiST (Pg95)
and we'll try to implement regression test using R-Tree
it's anyway will be a good test.
Regards,
Oleg
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
>
> > > Um, you do
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> > regress tests may as well be mainstream? At least in terms of the
> > portability requirements it will have to meet?
> >
> > I'm unhappy again. Bad enough we accepted a new
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I'm unhappy again. Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
> >> now we're going to expect an absolutely virgin contrib module to work
> >> everywhere in order to pass regress tests?
>
> > Last I checked,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I'm unhappy again. Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
> >> now we're going to expect an absolutely virgin contrib module to work
> >> everywhere in order to pass regress tests?
> > Last I checked, two contrib modules h
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm unhappy again. Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
>> now we're going to expect an absolutely virgin contrib module to work
>> everywhere in order to pass regress tests?
> Last I checked, two contrib modules had to be built for regressi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> regress tests may as well be mainstream? At least in terms of the
> portability requirements it will have to meet?
> I'm unhappy again. Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
> now we're going
> Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> regress tests may as well be mainstream? At least in terms of the
> portability requirements it will have to meet?
>
> I'm unhappy again. Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
> now we're going to expect an a
Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No way, we need to load functions. there are several contributions
which depends on loaded functions. If you suggest how to do this
in general way, it would fine. To test GiST you need to define some
data structure ( in our case - RD-tr
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > > erk, can we get this somehow done in such a way that its part of the
> > > *standard* regression tests? so when ppl do 'make test',
> > > the GiST stuff is checked also? My worry, as with others, isn't that
> > > GiST itself is broken by the cha
> > erk, can we get this somehow done in such a way that its part of the
> > *standard* regression tests? so when ppl do 'make test',
> > the GiST stuff is checked also? My worry, as with others, isn't that
> > GiST itself is broken by the changes, its that *somehow* there is an
> > interaction
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There have been more changes since 7.0 than in any previous version I
> can remember as far as the build goes.
No surprise, considering the amount of work Peter E. has done on
cleaning up the configure, build, and install process --- exactly
the stuff that
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone have any objections to my downloading the tar file (doing that
> now), committing the changes and wrapping up a quick Beta4 just so that we
> have a tar ball that is testable right away?
I think we oughta review the changes at least a li
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > just downloaded it and can't find any regression tests ... ?
> >
> > it's in the contrib-intarray.tar.gz
> > gmake, gmake install, gmake in
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> >
> > just downloaded it and can't find any regression tests ... ?
>
> it's in the contrib-intarray.tar.gz
> gmake, gmake install, gmake installcheck
erk, can we get this somehow done in such a way that
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> just downloaded it and can't find any regression tests ... ?
it's in the contrib-intarray.tar.gz
gmake, gmake install, gmake installcheck
Oleg
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wr
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Save Lamar and the other packagers a bit of work by avoiding beta3
> packages :)
:-)
Well, working on those packages now. Fun stuff. I learn more about
more different parts of the code each new version, as the hang-ups
change from version to version. Although, thank
just downloaded it and can't find any regression tests ... ?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I understand Tom's arguments and respect
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I understand Tom's arguments and respect his experience, so I think it's
> > > possible to put link to my page in 7.1 docs for people interested in
> > > GiST fea
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I understand Tom's arguments and respect his experience, so I think it's
> > possible to put link to my page in 7.1 docs for people interested in
> > GiST features.
>
> Bear in mind that I only have one core vote
Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I understand Tom's arguments and respect his experience, so I think it's
> possible to put link to my page in 7.1 docs for people interested in
> GiST features.
Bear in mind that I only have one core vote ;-). We've already had some
private core discus
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> I make a personal promise to spend at least 5 hours of testing new GiST
> functionality during this weekend if it is commited to 7.1 CVS.
> (ok, I do it anyhow, just that currently I'm testing it using the
> patches ;)
Hanny,
latest version is availab
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > The RelFileNodeEquals() bug we found on Monday proves that no one had
> > yet done enough stress-testing on 7.1 to discover that multiple
> > databases were broken. Think about that for awhile before
> > you campaign for inserting untested new featu
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> ... the calendar says it's too late for 7.1.
>
> > Even for the _real_ bugfixes in gist.c ?
>
> If he were submitting only bugfixes, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion.
But he had very little incentive to fix bugs in the v
> The RelFileNodeEquals() bug we found on Monday proves that no one had
> yet done enough stress-testing on 7.1 to discover that multiple
> databases were broken. Think about that for awhile before
> you campaign for inserting untested new features at this point.
> We need to focus on TESTING, p
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ... the calendar says it's too late for 7.1.
> Even for the _real_ bugfixes in gist.c ?
If he were submitting only bugfixes, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
Look, I don't like postponing improvements either. But if we don't
adhere to project
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's my vote too, specially if there will be some regression tests
> > accompanying the patches. The current (pre-patch) state of affairs with
> > GiST could probably be described as security-by-obscurity anyhow i.e.
> > "we have
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's my vote too, specially if there will be some regression tests
> accompanying the patches. The current (pre-patch) state of affairs with
> GiST could probably be described as security-by-obscurity anyhow i.e.
> "we have't tried it so we think it
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
> > I think featureism is the the most prominent argument for PostgreSQL.
Exactly! Altough it has already lost much of it ;(
> > Thus standing before a decision to eighter fix GiST bugs and risc a new
> > bug (limit
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
> > > > we've almost totally rewrite gist.c because old code and algorithm
> > > > were not suitable for variable size keys. I think it might be
> > > > submitted into 7.1 beta source tree.
> > >
> > > Urgh. Dropping in a total rewrite when we
40 matches
Mail list logo
