Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Hannu Krosing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 03 February 2003 22:30 > To: Dave Page > Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers; Katie Ward > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results > > > Your hardware should also be a

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Hannu Krosing
Dave Page kirjutas E, 03.02.2003 kell 18:51: > Well the results are finally in. Hopefully we can concentrate on putting > them right, rather than having a round of "told you so's" :-) > > I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency checks. > The updated version is attached. >

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 03 February 2003 21:52 > To: Dave Page > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results > > > "Dave Page" <[E

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Tom Lane
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rod Taylor allegedly said: >> Any change of tossing in a periodic VACUUM or would that throw off the >> results? > Dunno, Tom could best answer that, but a *complete guess* based on piecing > together tidbits of how it all works from various threads here,

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Dave Page
Rod Taylor allegedly said: >> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency >> checks. The updated version is attached. > > For curiosity sake, I've compiled it and am running it on FreeBSD with > soft-updates enabled. > > A few variable declarations needed to be bumped up to the

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Dave Page
Vince Vielhaber allegedly said: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dave Page wrote: > >> Run | Errors Detected >> = >> 07 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10262)!! 09 | >> DISTINCT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Rod Taylor
> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency checks. > The updated version is attached. For curiosity sake, I've compiled it and am running it on FreeBSD with soft-updates enabled. A few variable declarations needed to be bumped up to the top of their respective function. An

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Vince Vielhaber
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dave Page wrote: > Well the results are finally in. Hopefully we can concentrate on putting > them right, rather than having a round of "told you so's" :-) > > I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency checks. > The updated version is attached. [...] > >

[HACKERS] Win32 Powerfail testing - results

2003-02-03 Thread Dave Page
Well the results are finally in. Hopefully we can concentrate on putting them right, rather than having a round of "told you so's" :-) I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency checks. The updated version is attached. Regards, Dave. System == Gigabyte GA-6VTXD Motherbo