Re: [BUGS] OSX 10.2.2 and beta 5

2002-11-16 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 15:18:58 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> "Random" randomly fails. It is OK. > > > So why is it a regression test, then? > > It's hard to see how you could test random

Re: [BUGS] OSX 10.2.2 and beta 5

2002-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Random" randomly fails. It is OK. > So why is it a regression test, then? It's hard to see how you could test random() in a completely deterministic fashion ... regards, tom lane ---

Re: [BUGS] OSX 10.2.2 and beta 5

2002-11-16 Thread Neil Conway
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Random" randomly fails. It is OK. So why is it a regression test, then? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our e

Re: [BUGS] OSX 10.2.2 and beta 5

2002-11-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
"Random" randomly fails. It is OK. --- Theodore Petrosky wrote: > I just downloaded beta 5 and ran through a stock > config and make. make check comes up with 1 failure > listed as ignored.. > > parallel group (16 tests):

[BUGS] OSX 10.2.2 and beta 5

2002-11-16 Thread Theodore Petrosky
I just downloaded beta 5 and ran through a stock config and make. make check comes up with 1 failure listed as ignored.. parallel group (16 tests): select_distinct_on transactions random select_having subselect select_into select_distinct portals arrays union case select_implicit hash_index aggre