Обсуждение: 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...
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
>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
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 seenhttp://www.pop4.net? Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
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 queryYou are
currentlyconnected to the database: basement
basement=>
--
The world's most ambitious and comprehensive PC game database project.
http://www.mobygames.com
> > 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 0.98NT-specific patchFix 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, Pennsylvania19026
>> 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
> 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, Pennsylvania19026
> >> 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, Pennsylvania19026
>> [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
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
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
>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
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 seenhttp://www.pop4.net? Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
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 José Lobo Perea Tel: +34 91 336 78 19 Centro de Cálculo Fax: +34 91 331 92 29 E.U.I.T. Telecomunicación e-mail: pjlobo@euitt.upm.es Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Ctra. de Valencia, Km. 7 E-28031 Madrid - España / Spain
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
[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, Pennsylvania19026
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 José Lobo Perea Tel: +34 91 336 78 19 Centro de Cálculo Fax: +34 91 331 92 29 E.U.I.T. Telecomunicación e-mail: pjlobo@euitt.upm.es Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Ctra. de Valencia, Km. 7 E-28031 Madrid - España / Spain
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
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/ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
> > 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
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 thatwith 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/ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
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/ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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