From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: beta3 Solaris 7 (SPARC) port report [ Was: Looking for . . . ] |
Date: | 2001-01-24 23:42:45 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0101250036010.1469-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Frank Joerdens writes:
[randomly varying set of regression tests fail]
> Running the tests on my Linux box gives no failed tests. Must I assume
> that those failed tests indicate some issue that is is detrimental to
> the proper functioning of the server on this Solaris installation? Do
> you want the regression.diffs?
Could you go into src/test/regress/pg_regress.sh and edit around line 162
#case $host_platform in
# *-*-qnx* | *beos*)
unix_sockets=no;;
# *)
# unix_sockets=yes;;
#esac
(i.e., ensure that unix_sockets is set to 'no'), and rerun 'make check'.
I have experienced before that Unix sockets will cause random connection
abortions on Solaris, which will cause the regression tests to fail
arbitrarily.
> I also tried using the Sun compiler, which didn't work at all.
details on "didn't work" requested...
> now I get scary stuff like:
>
> ----------------------- begin scary stuff -----------------------
> test int2 ... ERROR: pg_atoi: error in "34.5": can't
> parse ".5"
> ERROR: pg_atoi: error reading "100000": Result too large
> ERROR: pg_atoi: error in "asdf": can't parse "asdf"
This is normal. The regression tests sometimes involve intentional
invalid input.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-25 00:06:47 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] Re: JDBC Performance |
Previous Message | David Wall | 2001-01-24 23:18:35 | Re: MySQL has transactions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-24 23:47:33 | Re: Re: unixODBC again :-( |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-01-24 23:27:06 | Re: WAL documentation |