Re: Request for supported platforms

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Request for supported platforms
Date: 2002-11-01 15:53:34
Message-ID: 26254.1036166014@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
> $ uname -a
> FreeBSD avienda.nxad.com 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #1: Mon Oct 28 18:20:14 PST 2002 root(at)avienda(dot)nxad(dot)com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DELLAPTOP i386

> Looks like the only problem on beta3 is that the geometry bits are
> failing, but I'm not 100% if they haven't already been solved. -sc

Hmm. Evidently you now have support for minus-zero. It looks like we
have an updated comparison file for that case for FreeBSD, but it's only
being applied for FreeBSD 4.7:

geometry/i.86-.*-freebsd4.7=geometry-bsd-precision
geometry/i.86-.*-freebsd=geometry-positive-zeros-bsd
geometry/alpha.*-freebsd=geometry-positive-zeros

Or at least it's *trying* to apply it for 4.7 --- as near as I can tell
without testing, the above scrap of resultmap code is wrong because both
of the i.86 lines will match on FreeBSD 4.7, and I think the pg_regress
coding will take the last match. Larry, did you actually test the
CVS-tip resultmap to make sure it picks the right comparison file on
your box?

We could possibly do

geometry/i.86-.*-freebsd=geometry-positive-zeros-bsd
geometry/i.86-.*-freebsd4.7=geometry-bsd-precision
geometry/i.86-.*-freebsd5=geometry-bsd-precision
geometry/alpha.*-freebsd=geometry-positive-zeros

which is mighty ugly, but I'm hopeful that by the next PG release we'll
have gotten rid of most of the platform-to-platform geometry variants
anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-01 16:20:12 Re: Interesting VACUUM notice
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-11-01 15:39:09 Re: Interesting VACUUM notice