Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > > Uh, no, Linux/i686 is showing trouble too, but not in the initdb
> > > stage. The Sparc platforms will be more sensitive to byte alignment
> > > problems, especially within C structures, so this may be
> > > illustrating a cross-platform problem more clearly.
> > > There is a repeatable indexing and (perhaps) caching problem I see
> > > in the regression tests. Annoyingly, the problems get slightly worse
> > > at the moment when compiling with -O0.
> > OK, here is my regression output. Do you see anything strange in
> > there?
>
> Well, yes, just not as strange as my tests :) You don't have int8
> enabled, and if your compiler and libc allow it I'd like to get that
> going. But that isn't a problem.
>
> You have a core dump from the "having" test. Is that a known problem
> with someone working on a solution? The test worked on my ~month-old
> development tree (I could probably figure out the vintage of that tree
> to more precision if it would be helpful), so something has happened in
> the meantime.
>
I submitted two patch patches to fix the select_having test. The first patch addressed problems caused by
a machine dependency on the degree of accuracy of datetime. CVS is currently showing this first patch.
The second patch was to fix my first patch. It has NOT been applied yet. The problem with he first
patch, which you are seeing now, is that the test case demonstrates another bug which has nothing to do
with having. It has to do with GROUPing by a function and the argument of the function not appearing
elsewhere in the target list. Weird! In any case the latest patch will fix the regression.
BTW, I have also sent one other patch that I am waiting to see in CVS. These one is an interim AND/OR
memory exhaustion fix.