Thank you, Alex, that is a very nice solution. I have committed it to
the main repo.
Yes, I thought it did work in at least one place.
On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 10:51 +0300, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> RLR> However, fixing those tests (or the concurrency problem they
> RLR> represent) under SBCL is a
RLR> However, fixing those tests (or the concurrency problem they
RLR> represent) under SBCL is a high priority.
what do you mean by "fixing under SBCL"? do you think they are working on
some other implementation?
very unlikely..
i've improved and extended concurrency tests, and they work most
i've sort of extended concurreny tests with various scenarios and checks.
these checks test for consistensy and proper transactional isolation and
atomicity.
but some backends (read: CLSQL) might have problems supporting high level of
isolation.
so, does it make sense to support weaker isolatio
Chun Tian,
Were you able to run the tests on PostgreSQL as well? Did they show
similar failures?
The set range features have always been a little fragile, but I'm not
sure how 64-bits would effect it. I can try to run Lispworks 32bit
on Linux as I think there have been some differences
Hi, Elephant Developers
I saw the release 0.9 yesterday, and three "should work" of LispWorks (64-bit)
on the testing status page. Fortunately I have a 5.0.2 Enterprise Edition of
LispWorks (64-bit) for Linux, runing on a Debian box, with Berkeley DB 4.5
and PostgreSQL 8.2 client installed. Glad t
Frank,
Outstanding! Thank you. I'll test it locally and promote some
patches in a day or two.
Cheers,
Ian
On Feb 27, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Frank Schorr wrote:
On mswin and ACL 8 trial:
(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :elephant)
(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :ele-bdb)
(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :e
On mswin and ACL 8 trial:
(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :elephant)
(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :ele-bdb)
(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :elephant-tests)
(do-backend-tests '(:BDB "c:/temp/testbdb/"))
Doing 124 pending tests of 124 tests total.
FIXNUMS FIXNUM-TYPE-1 READ-32-BIT-FIXNUM READ-64-BIT-FIXN
This proposed solution is just what I was imagining (only better described.)
Certainly, whether we use it or not, 0.6.0 should start attaching a version
to a store.
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 14:12 -0500, Ian Eslick wrote:
Probably we need to add a way to store simple database metadata (list
st
I haven't been able to test my little patch to controllers.lisp that
should handle upgrading from 0.5.0 db's to 0.6.0 db's. Could someone
run a quick test on my behalf? I'm happy to help guide a short
debugging cycle (it's a trivial change - recognize deprecated classes
and create the replacement
