Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!

2001-01-15 Thread selkovjr
Tom Lane writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > on which configure didn't detect the absence of libz.so > >> > >> Really? Details please. It's hard to see how it could have messed > >> up on that. > > > I didn't look well enough -- I apologize. The library is there, but > > ld.so believes

Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!

2001-01-14 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: on which configure didn't detect the absence of libz.so >> >> Really? Details please. It's hard to see how it could have messed >> up on that. > I didn't look well enough -- I apologize. The library is there, but > ld.so believes it is not: > typhoon> postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!

2001-01-14 Thread selkovjr
> Tom Lane writes: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... > > SunOS typhoon 5.7 Generic_106541-10 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1 > > > on which configure didn't detect the absence of libz.so > > Really? Details please. It's hard to see how it could have messed > up on that. Tom, I didn't look well eno

Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!

2001-01-13 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I am sorry I wasn't listening -- I may have helped by at least > answering the direct questions and by testing. I have, in fact, > positively tested both my and Oleg's code in the today's snapshot on a > number of linux and FreeBSD systems. I failed on this one: > SunO

Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!

2001-01-13 Thread selkovjr
I am sorry I wasn't listening -- I may have helped by at least answering the direct questions and by testing. I have, in fact, positively tested both my and Oleg's code in the today's snapshot on a number of linux and FreeBSD systems. I failed on this one: SunOS typhoon 5.7 Generic_106541-10 sun4

Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!

2001-01-12 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> An optional test is like no test at all. No one runs optional tests. If > the test is supposed to work then it should be mainstream. If the test > might not work then you better go back and figure out what you're testing. > If the test might not *compile* (which is probably the more severe pr

Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!

2001-01-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Thomas Lockhart writes: > How about adding an optional test a la "bigtest" for GiST for this > release? An optional test is like no test at all. No one runs optional tests. If the test is supposed to work then it should be mainstream. If the test might not work then you better go back and fig