Re: Request for supported platforms

On Tuesday 29 October 2002 01:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Sorry, Ian, here is the patch I applied. You can apply this to whatever
> version you are using and test Irix with that, rather than having to
> grab CVS.

OK, I have carried out make check with the updated tests but
got FAILED on the same four tests (abstime, tinterval, horology, join).

The failures are subtly different (see here for new regression diff):

http://home.akademie.de/~IBarwick/IRIX_65_1.regression.diffs

Having looked at them again I see the following:
- in horology the timestamp tests seem to have succeeded (presumably
the previous failures were triggered by the change to winter time);
- the tests which are still failing in abstime, tinterval and horology
all refer to dates before 1970, where AFAICS they are all out by one hour;
possibly this explanation?:

"Some systems using older time zone libraries fail to apply daylight-saving
corrections to dates before 1970, causing pre-1970 PDT times to be displayed
in PST instead. This will result in localized differences in the test
results."

(cf. http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?regress-evaluation.html );

- the join tests are failing slightly differently; I would suggest that
this is because the ORDER BY is still not explicit enough, and for what
ever reason under IRIX the undefined result row orderings are in a different
order to every other platform...

e.g. with this statement:

SELECT '' AS "xxx", J1_TBL.i, j, t, k
FROM J1_TBL LEFT OUTER JOIN J2_TBL USING (i)
ORDER BY i;

xxx | i | j | t | k
-----+---+---+-------+----
| 0 | | zero |
| 1 | 4 | one | -1
| 2 | 3 | two | 2
| 2 | 3 | two | 4
| 3 | 2 | three | -3
| 4 | 1 | four |
| 5 | 0 | five | -5
| 5 | 0 | five | -5
| 6 | 6 | six |
| 7 | 7 | seven |
| 8 | 8 | eight |
| | 0 | zero |
| | | null |
(13 rows)

the order of the last two rows is not defined. The expected order
according to the regression tests is:

| | | null |
| | 0 | zero |

Ian Barwick
barwick(at)gmx(dot)net