re: NetBSD "Bad address" failure (was Re: [HACKERS] Third call for platform testing)

2001-04-16 Thread matthew green
yes, this is a bug in netbsd-current that was introduced with about 5 month ago with the new unified buffer cache system. it has been fixed. thanks. From: Chuck Silvers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CVS commit: syssrc Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:37:44 +0300 (EEST) Modu

re: [lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu: [HACKERS] Third call for platform testing]

2001-04-07 Thread matthew green
> >> CREATE INDEX hash_i4_index ON hash_i4_heap USING hash (random int4_ops); > >> + ERROR: cannot read block 3 of hash_i4_index: Bad address > > "Bad address"? That seems pretty bizarre. This is obviously something that shows up on _some_ NetBSD platforms. The above w

re: [lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu: [HACKERS] Third call for platform testing]

2001-04-07 Thread matthew green
matthew green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > digging into the regression.diffs, i can see that: > - reltime failed because it just had: > ! psql: Backend startup failed >The postmaster log file should have more info, but a first thought is >th

re: [lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu: [HACKERS] Third call for platform testing]

2001-04-07 Thread matthew green
>> digging into the regression.diffs, i can see that: >> - reltime failed because it just had: >> ! psql: Backend startup failed The postmaster log file should have more info, but a first thought is that you ran up against process or swap-space limitations. The parallel

re: [lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu: [HACKERS] Third call for platform testing]

2001-04-07 Thread matthew green
>> i will be reinstalling this SS20 with a full installation sometime in >> the next few days. i will re-run the testsuite after this to see if >> that is causing any of the lossage. Please let us know. actually, i had a classic i could test with -- all except horology passe