
Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
haven't announced it yet...

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:50:09 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
>Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
>just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
>haven't announced it yet...

Ok, give me an hour. I will check it on LinuxPPC with MB and Tcl/Tk
enabled.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Thu, 04 Nov 1999 11:05:41 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ... 

On 04-Nov-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> haven't announced it yet...

Any special highlights I should know about with this version or is it 
mainly fixes?

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH   email: vev@michvhf.com   flame-mail: /dev/null
  # include <std/disclaimers.h>       Have you seen http://www.pop4.net?
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================



Wed, 03 Nov 1999 21:21:13 -0500 (EST)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
RE: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 09:50:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> haven't announced it yet...
> 

I downloaded, compiled and installed with no problem and a RedHat 6.0/x86 
machine.  One thing I noticed is that the PG_SUBVERSION string is still
reporting 1.  I was confused for a minute when the program reported itself
as 6.5.1.  I thought the installation failed or something like that.  I 
checked postgresql-6.5.3/src/include/version.h.in and sure enough, it's 
defined a 6.5.1   If this is intentional, I'll slap myself for you.

[root@loopy]# /usr/bin/psql basement
Welcome to the POSTGRESQL interactive sql monitor:
  Please read the file COPYRIGHT for copyright terms of POSTGRESQL
[PostgreSQL 6.5.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]

   type \? for help on slash commands
   type \q to quit
   type \g or terminate with semicolon to execute query
 You are currently connected to the database: basement

basement=> 
 

-- 
The world's most ambitious and comprehensive PC game database project.

                      http://www.mobygames.com

Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:25:37 -0600
Brian Hirt <bhirt@mobygames.com>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
> 
> On 04-Nov-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > 
> > Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> > just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> > haven't announced it yet...
> 
> Any special highlights I should know about with this version or is it 
> mainly fixes?


History file has:

	Updated version of pgaccess 0.98
	NT-specific patch
	Fix dumping rules on inherited tables

Not much.

-- 
  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

Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:32:17 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
>> On 04-Nov-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>> > 
>> > Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
>> > just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
>> > haven't announced it yet...
>> 
>> Any special highlights I should know about with this version or is it 
>> mainly fixes?
>
>
>History file has:
>
>	Updated version of pgaccess 0.98

pgaccess coming with 6.5.3 seems 0.96?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Thu, 04 Nov 1999 12:41:21 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ... 
> On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 09:50:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > 
> > Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> > just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> > haven't announced it yet...
> > 
> 
> I downloaded, compiled and installed with no problem and a RedHat 6.0/x86 
> machine.  One thing I noticed is that the PG_SUBVERSION string is still
> reporting 1.  I was confused for a minute when the program reported itself
> as 6.5.1.  I thought the installation failed or something like that.  I 
> checked postgresql-6.5.3/src/include/version.h.in and sure enough, it's 
> defined a 6.5.1   If this is intentional, I'll slap myself for you.
> 
> [root@loopy]# /usr/bin/psql basement
> Welcome to the POSTGRESQL interactive sql monitor:
>   Please read the file COPYRIGHT for copyright terms of POSTGRESQL
> [PostgreSQL 6.5.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]

That seems totally wrong.  My version.h.in file says 6.5.3. Either you
got the wrong file, or Marc has packaged the wrong files.

-- 
  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

Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:44:27 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
> >> On 04-Nov-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> >> > just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> >> > haven't announced it yet...
> >> 
> >> Any special highlights I should know about with this version or is it 
> >> mainly fixes?
> >
> >
> >History file has:
> >
> >	Updated version of pgaccess 0.98
> 
> pgaccess coming with 6.5.3 seems 0.96?

OK, that confirms it.  Marc has probably packaged the wrong files.


-- 
  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

Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:45:03 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
>> [root@loopy]# /usr/bin/psql basement
>> Welcome to the POSTGRESQL interactive sql monitor:
>>   Please read the file COPYRIGHT for copyright terms of POSTGRESQL
>> [PostgreSQL 6.5.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]
>
>That seems totally wrong.  My version.h.in file says 6.5.3. Either you
>got the wrong file, or Marc has packaged the wrong files.

I confirmed that too.
ftp.postgresql.org/pub/postgresql-6.5.3.tar.gz is 6.5.1 as long as I
can see from version.h.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Thu, 04 Nov 1999 13:02:27 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ... 

Fixed, and tar file rebuilt ...


On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Brian Hirt wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 09:50:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > 
> > Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> > just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> > haven't announced it yet...
> > 
> 
> I downloaded, compiled and installed with no problem and a RedHat 6.0/x86 
> machine.  One thing I noticed is that the PG_SUBVERSION string is still
> reporting 1.  I was confused for a minute when the program reported itself
> as 6.5.1.  I thought the installation failed or something like that.  I 
> checked postgresql-6.5.3/src/include/version.h.in and sure enough, it's 
> defined a 6.5.1   If this is intentional, I'll slap myself for you.
> 
> [root@loopy]# /usr/bin/psql basement
> Welcome to the POSTGRESQL interactive sql monitor:
>   Please read the file COPYRIGHT for copyright terms of POSTGRESQL
> [PostgreSQL 6.5.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]
> 
>    type \? for help on slash commands
>    type \q to quit
>    type \g or terminate with semicolon to execute query
>  You are currently connected to the database: basement
> 
> basement=> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> The world's most ambitious and comprehensive PC game database project.
> 
>                       http://www.mobygames.com
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:09:26 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 09:50:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > 
> > > Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> > > just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> > > haven't announced it yet...
> > > 
> > 
> > I downloaded, compiled and installed with no problem and a RedHat 6.0/x86 
> > machine.  One thing I noticed is that the PG_SUBVERSION string is still
> > reporting 1.  I was confused for a minute when the program reported itself
> > as 6.5.1.  I thought the installation failed or something like that.  I 
> > checked postgresql-6.5.3/src/include/version.h.in and sure enough, it's 
> > defined a 6.5.1   If this is intentional, I'll slap myself for you.
> > 
> > [root@loopy]# /usr/bin/psql basement
> > Welcome to the POSTGRESQL interactive sql monitor:
> >   Please read the file COPYRIGHT for copyright terms of POSTGRESQL
> > [PostgreSQL 6.5.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]
> 
> That seems totally wrong.  My version.h.in file says 6.5.3. Either you
> got the wrong file, or Marc has packaged the wrong files.

Not bad, eh?  I'm the one that creates the TAGS, and I don't even use the
wrong one...glad I got a "second opinion" on this before I put out a
release announcement *grin*

Fixing now ... there, new, and proper one, built ... *sheepish grin*

it seems to be the "in thing" nowadays to include an MD5 signature, so
here it is:

MD5(postgresql-6.5.3.tar.gz)= cf921a8aa2adc846a13e019ce920c83a

its in the postgresql-6.5.3.tar.gz.md5 file on the ftp site too...


Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:19:28 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
>Fixing now ... there, new, and proper one, built ... *sheepish grin*
>
>it seems to be the "in thing" nowadays to include an MD5 signature, so
>here it is:
>
>MD5(postgresql-6.5.3.tar.gz)= cf921a8aa2adc846a13e019ce920c83a
>
>its in the postgresql-6.5.3.tar.gz.md5 file on the ftp site too...

Ok. I have tested on my LinuxPPC box. Regression tests seem good,
pgaccess 0.98 works fine. Thanks.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Thu, 04 Nov 1999 15:09:53 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ... 
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > > On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 09:50:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> > > > just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> > > > haven't announced it yet...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I downloaded, compiled and installed with no problem and a RedHat 6.0/x86 
> > > machine.  One thing I noticed is that the PG_SUBVERSION string is still
> > > reporting 1.  I was confused for a minute when the program reported itself
> > > as 6.5.1.  I thought the installation failed or something like that.  I 
> > > checked postgresql-6.5.3/src/include/version.h.in and sure enough, it's 
> > > defined a 6.5.1   If this is intentional, I'll slap myself for you.
> > > 
> > > [root@loopy]# /usr/bin/psql basement
> > > Welcome to the POSTGRESQL interactive sql monitor:
> > >   Please read the file COPYRIGHT for copyright terms of POSTGRESQL
> > > [PostgreSQL 6.5.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]
> > 
> > That seems totally wrong.  My version.h.in file says 6.5.3. Either you
> > got the wrong file, or Marc has packaged the wrong files.
> 
> Not bad, eh?  I'm the one that creates the TAGS, and I don't even use the
> wrong one...glad I got a "second opinion" on this before I put out a
> release announcement *grin*
> 
> Fixing now ... there, new, and proper one, built ... *sheepish grin*
> 
> it seems to be the "in thing" nowadays to include an MD5 signature, so
> here it is:
> 
> MD5(postgresql-6.5.3.tar.gz)= cf921a8aa2adc846a13e019ce920c83a
> 
> its in the postgresql-6.5.3.tar.gz.md5 file on the ftp site too...

Will there also be a patch 6.5.2 -> 6.5.3 made for this one?

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH   email: vev@michvhf.com   flame-mail: /dev/null
  # include <std/disclaimers.h>       Have you seen http://www.pop4.net?
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================




Thu, 4 Nov 1999 05:48:02 -0500 (EST)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>> Any special highlights I should know about with this version or is it 
>> mainly fixes?
>
>
>History file has:
>
>	Updated version of pgaccess 0.98
>	NT-specific patch
>	Fix dumping rules on inherited tables

It should also mention the fix for alpha/cc. Too late I'm afraid, and not
really important.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Josï¿½ Lobo Perea                   Tel:    +34 91 336 78 19
Centro de Cï¿½lculo                       Fax:    +34 91 331 92 29
E.U.I.T. Telecomunicaciï¿½n               e-mail: pjlobo@euitt.upm.es
Universidad Politï¿½cnica de Madrid
Ctra. de Valencia, Km. 7                E-28031 Madrid - Espaï¿½a / Spain


Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:22:48 +0100 (MET)
"Pedro J. Lobo" <pjlobo@euitt.upm.es>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> Will there also be a patch 6.5.2 -> 6.5.3 made for this one?

If so, please consider also making patches from 6.5.0 or 6.5.1 to 6.5.3
because the 6.5.2 patch was somewhat messed up. Of course a patch against
the messed up 6.5.2 would work, but I'd kind of like a cleaner solution.

Thanks,
	Peter

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:24:17 +0100 (MET)
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> >> Any special highlights I should know about with this version or is it 
> >> mainly fixes?
> >
> >
> >History file has:
> >
> >	Updated version of pgaccess 0.98
> >	NT-specific patch
> >	Fix dumping rules on inherited tables
> 
> It should also mention the fix for alpha/cc. Too late I'm afraid, and not
> really important.

I don't remember seeing that in the cvs logs for 6.5.3.
-- 
  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, 4 Nov 1999 09:48:04 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>> >History file has:
>> >
>> >	Updated version of pgaccess 0.98
>> >	NT-specific patch
>> >	Fix dumping rules on inherited tables
>> 
>> It should also mention the fix for alpha/cc. Too late I'm afraid, and not
>> really important.
>
>I don't remember seeing that in the cvs logs for 6.5.3.

I sent a patch to the patches list two or three weeks ago. I think that
you didn't apply exactly that patch, but someting similar. The problem is
indeed solved, because 6.5.2 didn't compile out of the box and 6.5.3 does.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Josï¿½ Lobo Perea                   Tel:    +34 91 336 78 19
Centro de Cï¿½lculo                       Fax:    +34 91 331 92 29
E.U.I.T. Telecomunicaciï¿½n               e-mail: pjlobo@euitt.upm.es
Universidad Politï¿½cnica de Madrid
Ctra. de Valencia, Km. 7                E-28031 Madrid - Espaï¿½a / Spain


Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:59:31 +0100 (MET)
"Pedro J. Lobo" <pjlobo@euitt.upm.es>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> 
> > Will there also be a patch 6.5.2 -> 6.5.3 made for this one?
> 
> If so, please consider also making patches from 6.5.0 or 6.5.1 to 6.5.3
> because the 6.5.2 patch was somewhat messed up. Of course a patch against
> the messed up 6.5.2 would work, but I'd kind of like a cleaner solution.

Does someone want to give me a 'diff' command that they feel is good?
Nobody ever seems to like the one that I use :(

Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:30:55 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> haven't announced it yet...

	For my two cents, the Linux/Alpha patches for 6.5.2 apply cleanly
to the 6.5.3 tarball. I am compiling and running regression tests now, but
I don't expect any problems.
	Once there is a formal release annoucement, I will make an
announcement to pgsql-ports list (and elsewhere?) and update my web site
to reflect that the 6.5.2 alpha patches apply fine to 6.5.3, and are all
that are needed to get pgsql 6.5.2 running on Linux/Alpha.
	...
	Ok, with the 6.5.2 patches, pgsql compiled fine and ran regression
tests with no problems. Only failures were the standard off by one in nth
decimal place geometry and the sort order difference in rules, both
harmless (IMHO).
	You have my go ahead (as if you needed it :) to release the 6.5.3
tarball.

	PS. Was there any speed ups in this version, or is just due to the
fact I finally have my Ultra disk on an Ultra SCSI controller that caused
the at least halving, if not not more of regression runtimes? :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."                    |
|                                            --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV)   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Ryan Kirkpatrick  |  Boulder, Colorado  |  http://www.rkirkpat.net/   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:38:47 -0600 (CST)
Ryan Kirkpatrick <pgsql@rkirkpat.net>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Thu, 04 Nov 1999, Ryan Kirkpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> > Can someone else take a quick peak at the tarball before we release it,
> > just to make sure that nothing is missing?  Its in the normal place, but
> > haven't announced it yet...
> 
> 	For my two cents, the Linux/Alpha patches for 6.5.2 apply cleanly
> to the 6.5.3 tarball. I am compiling and running regression tests now, but
> I don't expect any problems.

I'm glad you checked that.... I am now going to upgrade the version on the
RPM's I'm building from 0.2 (testing version) to 1 (stable version).  The Alpha
patches were the only thing I couldn't test here.  Thanks!

RPM's will be available from my site tomorrow.  Thomas or whoever can mirror
them over to ftp.postgresql.org.  The release e-mail I will send out tomorrow
(after the Official Scrappy-Approved Release (TM) of 6.5.3, that is.) will
contain the text of the news item in it (note for Vince).

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:22:44 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
> > For my two cents, the Linux/Alpha patches for 6.5.2 apply cleanly
> > to the 6.5.3 tarball. I am compiling and running regression tests 
> > now, but I don't expect any problems.

Ryan, y'all have some final results? What version of linux are you
running? I'll update the ports listing when I get the new info...

                     - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Sat, 06 Nov 1999 06:13:25 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > For my two cents, the Linux/Alpha patches for 6.5.2 apply cleanly
> > > to the 6.5.3 tarball. I am compiling and running regression tests 
> > > now, but I don't expect any problems.
> 
> Ryan, y'all have some final results? What version of linux are you
> running? I'll update the ports listing when I get the new info...

	Yea, the compile was clean after applying the 6.5.2 Linux/Alpha
patches, and regression test results were the same as they have been for
some time. Geometry failed due to off by one in nth decimal place and
rules failed due to sort order issues. 
	As for my system specs, I am running stock Debian 2.1r2, on an
XLT366. Kernel version is 2.0.36, but I see no reason it should not work
on 2.2.x kernels. I can't test 2.2.x kernels at the moment due to some
independent hardware issues between 2.2.x and an IBM SCSI disk. 
	Basically, you can update the ports listing to state that with
the alpha patches on my web site (or in the pgsql-patches mailing list
archive), pgsql runs great with no problems on Linux/Alpha save for a few
(harmless) unaligned access now and then. I just looked at the ports list,
and it does need to be updated as it states the last version tested
against Linux/Alpha was 6.3.2. :) 
	Also, please update my email address to 'pgsql@rkirkpat.net'. That
is where all pgsql related emails should be sent to reach me. The
remaining life span on the nag email address is undetermined at this time,
but probably less than seven months. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."                    |
|                                            --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV)   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Ryan Kirkpatrick  |  Boulder, Colorado  |  http://www.rkirkpat.net/   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:52:11 -0600 (CST)
Ryan Kirkpatrick <pgsql@rkirkpat.net>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
> Basically, you can update the ports listing to state that with
> the alpha patches on my web site (or in the pgsql-patches mailing list
> archive), pgsql runs great with no problems on Linux/Alpha save for a few
> (harmless) unaligned access now and then.

Sorry, the patches Ryan has posted are the same or different than the
ones Lamar is using/packaging?

                      - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Sat, 06 Nov 1999 21:20:17 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > Basically, you can update the ports listing to state that with
> > the alpha patches on my web site (or in the pgsql-patches mailing list
> > archive), pgsql runs great with no problems on Linux/Alpha save for a few
> > (harmless) unaligned access now and then.
> 
> Sorry, the patches Ryan has posted are the same or different than the
> ones Lamar is using/packaging?

	Uhh.. I think I lost you, or you lost me... I do not know which
patches Lamar is using, but I assume they would be the pgsql 6.5.2
linux/alpha patches. And I have already stated twice that they apply
cleanly to 6.5.3 pre-release, and work fine. Would it just be easier if I
took my patch file, renamed it to 6.5.3, and released it again? :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."                    |
|                                            --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV)   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Ryan Kirkpatrick  |  Boulder, Colorado  |  http://www.rkirkpat.net/   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:18:55 -0600 (CST)
Ryan Kirkpatrick <pgsql@rkirkpat.net>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...
On Sat, 06 Nov 1999, Ryan Kirkpatrick wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > Sorry, the patches Ryan has posted are the same or different than the
> > ones Lamar is using/packaging?
> 
> 	Uhh.. I think I lost you, or you lost me... I do not know which
> patches Lamar is using, but I assume they would be the pgsql 6.5.2
> linux/alpha patches. And I have already stated twice that they apply
> cleanly to 6.5.3 pre-release, and work fine. Would it just be easier if I
> took my patch file, renamed it to 6.5.3, and released it again? :)

The patches I am packaging with the 6.5.3-1 RPMS are the 6.5.2 patches Ryan
released not long ago.  Ryan, if you want to do it, it would be nice to have an
'Official' test of the RPM packaging on RedHat/Alpha -- pick up the source rpm
(http://www.ramifordistat.net/postgres/SRPMS/postgresql-6.5.3-1.src.rpm) and
see if the binary RPM's produced by a 'rpm --rebuild
postgresql-6.5.3-1.src.rpm' are sane.  That would be a nice thing.  I am
contemplating buying a used slower AT-form-factor Alpha motherboard to do just
this myself -- but, if you can and will, that will suffice.

Your first statement as to the cleanness of the patch application is what
allowed me to name these RPM's as 'stable' and non-beta -- had you not made
that mention, the 6.5.3 RPM's would be beta until I got confirmation of the
Alpha patches applicability.

And, Ryan, THANKS for the packaging of those patches!

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:41:52 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.3 built, but not released ...