The attached (new) src/test/regress/expected/geometry_9.out, intended
only for the 7.3 stable branch, allows a clean regression pass on my
FC4 box. I called it that to avoid conflicts with other geometry_n files
on later branches.
The attached patch for contrib/seg/segparse.y allows a clean
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached (new) src/test/regress/expected/geometry_9.out, intended
> only for the 7.3 stable branch, allows a clean regression pass on my
> FC4 box. I called it that to avoid conflicts with other geometry_n files
> on later branches.
I'd like to
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The attached (new) src/test/regress/expected/geometry_9.out, intended
> > only for the 7.3 stable branch, allows a clean regression pass on my
> > FC4 box. I called it that to avoid conflicts with other geom
Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd like to have a more principled approach to fixing the back branches
>> than "we'll do whatever it takes to have a clean buildfarm board on the
>> set of machines that happen to have volunteered to run buildfarm on
Tom Lane said:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The attached (new) src/test/regress/expected/geometry_9.out, intended
>> only for the 7.3 stable branch, allows a clean regression pass on my
>> FC4 box. I called it that to avoid conflicts with other geometry_n
>> files on later bran
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that because of the way the buildfarm script works, this failure was
> masking the seg errno bogosity. Maybe I should reverse the test order to
> make contrib before running and regression tests.
Seems like that'd just mask a different set of fai
Tom Lane wrote:
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Note that because of the way the buildfarm script works, this failure was
masking the seg errno bogosity. Maybe I should reverse the test order to
make contrib before running and regression tests.
Seems like that'd just ma
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Seems like that'd just mask a different set of failures.
> Yeah. I think I'd be more concerned by core regression failures than
> contrib build failures - especially as they are often likely to have
> more far reaching consequences.
Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah. I think I'd be more concerned by core regression failures than
contrib build failures - especially as they are often likely to have
more far reaching consequences.
Agreed. I guess that the order of importance of the pieces you have is
build main (this in
