This is a diff of several regression tests I run on my Linux box (last cvs):

dv:~/cvs/pgsql/src/test/regress$ diff results/opr_sanity.out expected/opr_sanity.out 
54,58c54,56
< oid|oprcode          |oid|oprcode          
< ---+-----------------+---+-----------------
< 512|on_ppath         |754|pt_contained_path
< 754|pt_contained_path|512|on_ppath         
< (2 rows)
---
> oid|oprcode|oid|oprcode       
> ---+-------+---+-------
> (0 rows)


dv:~/cvs/pgsql/src/test/regress$  diff results/random.out expected/random.out 
22,23c22
<    124
< (1 row)
---
> (0 rows)

dv:~/cvs/pgsql/src/test/regress$  diff results/geometry.out  expected/geometry.out 
115c115
<       |(-10,0)   |[(-1000000,200),(300000,-40)]|(-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140472) 
---
>       |(-10,0)   |[(-1000000,200),(300000,-40)]|(-9.99715942258202,15.3864610140473) 



Oleg

_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:18:15 +0300 (MSK)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
regression test results - Linux, cvs
> This is a diff of several regression tests I run on my Linux box
> (last cvs):

All known problems/features being fixed now. 

The random test fails occasionally (at random, suprisingly enough :)
since I'm doing a statistical test and occasionally the result falls
outside the arbitrary limits I set. But I didn't want the limits to be
too loose otherwise we might miss truly incorrect results. If you rerun,
random is likely to pass.

                    - Tom

Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:38:41 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] regression test results - Linux, cvs
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:38:41 +0000
> From: "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
> To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] regression test results - Linux, cvs
> 
> > This is a diff of several regression tests I run on my Linux box
> > (last cvs):
> 
> All known problems/features being fixed now. 
> 
> The random test fails occasionally (at random, suprisingly enough :)
> since I'm doing a statistical test and occasionally the result falls
> outside the arbitrary limits I set. But I didn't want the limits to be
> too loose otherwise we might miss truly incorrect results. If you rerun,
> random is likely to pass.
> 

Yes,
random test passed ok 1 from 3 tries. I have no time to test its
randomness :-) 

btw, vacuum crash  when postmaster starts with -B 1024 option
seems fixed now !!!! I tried many times 'vacuum analyze' and never
get problem ! Probably this is a bonus of last fixes :-)
	Regards,
		Oleg



>                     - Tom
> 

_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:52:43 +0300 (MSK)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: [HACKERS] regression test results - Linux, cvs
> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:38:41 +0000
> > From: "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
> > To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
> > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] regression test results - Linux, cvs
> > 
> > > This is a diff of several regression tests I run on my Linux box
> > > (last cvs):
> > 
> > All known problems/features being fixed now. 
> > 
> > The random test fails occasionally (at random, suprisingly enough :)
> > since I'm doing a statistical test and occasionally the result falls
> > outside the arbitrary limits I set. But I didn't want the limits to be
> > too loose otherwise we might miss truly incorrect results. If you rerun,
> > random is likely to pass.
> > 
> 
> Yes,
> random test passed ok 1 from 3 tries. I have no time to test its
> randomness :-) 
> 
> btw, vacuum crash  when postmaster starts with -B 1024 option
> seems fixed now !!!! I tried many times 'vacuum analyze' and never
> get problem ! Probably this is a bonus of last fixes :-)

My guess is the catalog changes Tom did fixed it.  Vacuum analyze uses
them quite a bit, and buffer cache size could affect which duplicate was
picked.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:43:04 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] regression test results - Linux, cvs
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> btw, vacuum crash  when postmaster starts with -B 1024 option
>> seems fixed now !!!! I tried many times 'vacuum analyze' and never
>> get problem ! Probably this is a bonus of last fixes :-)

> My guess is the catalog changes Tom did fixed it.  Vacuum analyze uses
> them quite a bit, and buffer cache size could affect which duplicate was
> picked.

Hmm, that would be an unexpected side benefit, wouldn't it!  It could be
true, if vacuum depends on pg_operator entries.  That'd explain why the
rest of us couldn't duplicate Oleg's problem: I'll bet no one who tried
had tables containing the data types that had bogus entries.  (In fact,
I imagine you need to have some *indexes* on those data types before
you'd see such a problem in vacuum, no?)

It occurs to me that there ought to be a VACUUM ANALYZE somewhere in
the regression suite, probably at the end where it has a whole database
of weird stuff to chew on.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:49:36 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] regression test results - Linux, cvs 