From: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems |
Date: | 2005-11-08 21:13:17 |
Message-ID: | 437114ED.1040603@gmx.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>>Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> writes:
>>
>>>I am definatly not going to use -march=pentium4 in any production
>>>system. Should I open a bug report with RedHat (gcc vendor)?
>
>
>>Yeah, but they'll probably want a smaller test case than "Postgres fails
>>its regression tests" :-(
>
>
> I have just confirmed that the problem still exists in FC4's current
> compiler (gcc 4.0.1, gcc-4.0.1-4.fc4), which probably will boost up the
> priority of the complaint quite a long way in Red Hat's eyes.
>
> I've also confirmed that the problem is in interval_div; you can
> reproduce the failure with
>
> select '41 years 1 mon 11 days'::interval / 10;
[snip]
Would you mind reporting this to RedHat Bugzilla? I believe a bug report
from you would have more weight then mine, because you actually
understand what's going on here. :-)
Otherwise I am going to do do my best...
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-08 21:14:34 | Re: Exclusive lock for database rename |
Previous Message | Robert Creager | 2005-11-08 21:09:35 | Re: Assert failure found in 8.1RC1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-08 22:48:16 | Re: Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems |
Previous Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-11-08 21:07:35 | Re: Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems |