This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:46:16 -0500 Bruce Momjian wrote: > > While applying the NT regression tests, I remember Tom Lane's comment > that people are being much more picky about the regression results. In > the old days, we could just say that they will have _expected_ errors, > but now they want them to match exactly. Well, it is NICE if they match exactly, but not essential for me. I have been advising intel RPM dist users to _expect_ float8 and geometry failures -- and the occassional 'random' failure, of course. And the situation with RedHat 6.1's locales brings yet another mixed bag -- I advise intel RPM users to completely disable RedHat's locale support (by renaming /etc/sysconfig/i18n to something else and rebooting) for performing regression tests -- then they can restore locale. Sort order under RedHat 6.1's locale is _messed_up_. Thomas mentioned RedHat 6.1 Intel being an appropriate reference platform -- if that is the case, then RH 6.1 Intel needs exact matches. Of course, ANY platform can be the reference -- as long as _one_ is. If BSD/os 4 (or whatever rev you're currently running) were to be the reference, then the regression tests had better match your machine's run. My opinion is to select the reference platform that produces the least amount of failures for other known good platforms. Also, geometry wouldn't fail if the number of digits of precision was jacked down one.... :-). > Kind of funny, their standards are going up. Is it a case of standards going up, or standards going down? ;-) As far as PostgreSQL's performance, our standards are definitely going up -- there has never been a better PostgreSQL, all around, than the one that is in CURRENT, IMO (and I've used everything since 6.1.1). ===