Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
От | Uncle George |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3798A7ED.38BF99BD@voicenet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-ports |
Thanks, But as I said before, with the same src, & tests, same collating seq, same lang, same 'c' compiler , and same ..........., u'd expect to get the same results. If u don't, as i have found out, there is an inconsistency in the PORT, libraries, etc ( whatever ) . I can go to upgrade to RH6.0/i386( mine is RH5.2 ) and see if is the same as the RH6.0/alpha, but I really suspect it will (still ) be different ( as the RH5.2/i386 matches expected/rules.out ). Therefor to resolve this inconsistency, I would like to know where the output get ( or gets not ) sorted properly. Any suggestions ? Linux, et al, is suppose to be consistent on all platforms, and a lot of people try very hard to get each linux port in-line with all other ports. I dont percieve postgresql as being any different on any other linux/( intel/alpha/ppc/sparc/mips ) machine. So I have said, so shall it be done. ( :-) ) gat Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > But I think that a computer has no right to any "damn order" it > > wants to, particular if its the same src & test facilities. > > Now that you mention it, it isn't the same source since we use some > Unix library sorting routines. It is fairly common for us to see > ordering differences between platforms, which is why you see so many > "order by" clauses in the regression tests. We can add one more (send > patches? :) and you would never know there was a difference in > underlying behavior... > > - Thomas
В списке pgsql-ports по дате отправления: