From: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems wrong) |
Date: | 2005-11-07 08:24:08 |
Message-ID: | 436F0F28.4040402@gmx.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Using both PostgreSQL 8.1.0 and CVS current of Nov 7, 9:00 am CET I get
a regression failure in the interval tests. I am no export for the
interval type, but the expected "9 days 28 hours" seem wrong, don't
they? The actual value seems to be the same.
Is it possible that this is broken on the platform where the expected
results were generated?
*** ./expected/interval.out Tue Oct 25 19:13:07 2005
--- ./results/interval.out Mon Nov 7 09:11:27 2005
***************
*** 218,224 ****
select avg(f1) from interval_tbl;
avg
-------------------------------------------------
! @ 4 years 1 mon 9 days 28 hours 18 mins 23 secs
(1 row)
-- test long interval input
--- 218,224 ----
select avg(f1) from interval_tbl;
avg
-------------------------------------------------
! @ 4 years 1 mon 10 days 4 hours 18 mins 23 secs
(1 row)
-- test long interval input
The last commit to interval.out seems to be this one, and it changed
exactly this line.
revision 1.14
date: 2005/10/25 17:13:07; author: tgl; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1
Well, this is CVS tip, so there is a chance this is fixed in
REL_8_1_STABLE which has a 1.14.0.2. At least the release tarball should
be rebuilt, no?
Sorry, if this is just noise. Just wanted to be sure you know about it.
Best Regards,
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2005-11-07 08:48:07 | Re: Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems wrong) |
Previous Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2005-11-07 08:14:41 | Re: Old interfaces directory in CVS tree? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2005-11-07 08:48:07 | Re: Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems wrong) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-06 16:26:39 | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |