Thread

1. results of regression tests: NetBSD/i386 v1.3

   Brook Milligan <brook@trillium.nmsu.edu> — 1998-02-17T07:19:39Z

   Now that I have run the regression tests for 6.3 on a NetBSD/i386 v1.3
   box I am wondering what to do with them.  Should they be used as a
   source for bug fixes before the next release?  If so, how should they
   be used?  By me only, or should I post them somewhere for others to
   review?
   
   Cheers,
   Brook
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] results of regression tests: NetBSD/i386 v1.3

   Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1998-02-17T15:14:45Z

   > Now that I have run the regression tests for 6.3 on a NetBSD/i386 v1.3
   > box I am wondering what to do with them.  Should they be used as a
   > source for bug fixes before the next release?  If so, how should they
   > be used?  By me only, or should I post them somewhere for others to
   > review?
   
   Do they illustrate platform-specific bugs? If not, then we all can use
   our own platforms for these examples.
   
   If the differences are platform-specific, but expected, then perhaps Marc
   would like to get these for his "OS-specific" regression test
   comparisons??
   
                                            - Tom
   
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] results of regression tests: NetBSD/i386 v1.3

   Brook Milligan <brook@trillium.nmsu.edu> — 1998-02-17T19:56:25Z

      Do they illustrate platform-specific bugs? If not, then we all can use
      our own platforms for these examples.
   
   I'm not sure how I would recognize platform-specific bugs since I only
   have one platform.  In the past I've ignored them, but I just thought
   this might be the time to point out problems that need attention in
   case they are something unusual.
   
   Diffs from the expected output yield things like:
   
   - ERROR:  pg_atoi: error reading "100000": Math result not representable
   + ERROR:  pg_atoi: error reading "100000": Result too large
   
   - ERROR:  Bad float8 input format '10e-400'
   + ERROR:  Bad float8 input format '-10e-400'
   
   + ERROR:  check_fkeys2_pkey_exist: tuple references non-existing key in pkeys
   + ERROR:  check_fkeys_pkey_exist: tuple references non-existing key in pkeys
   
   - NOTICE:  check_pkeys_fkey_cascade: 1 tuple(s) of fkeys2 are deleted
   + ERROR:  check_fkeys2_fkey_restrict: tuple referenced in fkeys
   
   - ERROR:  Cannot insert a duplicate key into a unique index
   
   - NOTICE:  Non-functional update, only first update is performed
   
   If these are general diffs, I'll ignore them; otherwise, I'll be glad
   to give more specific information.
   
   Cheers,
   Brook
   
   

4. Re: [HACKERS] results of regression tests: NetBSD/i386 v1.3

   Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1998-02-18T02:43:32Z

   >    Do they illustrate platform-specific bugs? If not, then we all can use
   >    our own platforms for these examples.
   >
   > I'm not sure how I would recognize platform-specific bugs since I only
   > have one platform.  In the past I've ignored them, but I just thought
   > this might be the time to point out problems that need attention in
   > case they are something unusual.
   >
   > Diffs from the expected output yield things like:
   > <snip>
   
   These are typical platform-specific differences, and are expected. The last few
   examples are from the trigger tests, which are going to be revisited before v6.3
   release by Vadim (I hope :).
   
                                                       - Tom
   
   
   

5. Re: [HACKERS] results of regression tests: NetBSD/i386 v1.3

   Vadim Mikheev <vadim@sable.krasnoyarsk.su> — 1998-02-18T13:22:14Z

   Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
   > 
   > >    Do they illustrate platform-specific bugs? If not, then we all can use
   > >    our own platforms for these examples.
   > >
   > > I'm not sure how I would recognize platform-specific bugs since I only
   > > have one platform.  In the past I've ignored them, but I just thought
   > > this might be the time to point out problems that need attention in
   > > case they are something unusual.
   > >
   > > Diffs from the expected output yield things like:
   > > <snip>
   > 
   > These are typical platform-specific differences, and are expected. The last few
   > examples are from the trigger tests, which are going to be revisited before v6.3
   > release by Vadim (I hope :).
   
   Results are the same as in 6.2.1 expected. So, I just put 6.2.1 expected
   into 6.3 expected (with WARN: --> ERROR: translation). Should be ok now.
   Let's know if not.
   
   Vadim