| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Buildfarm feature request: some way to track/classify failures |
| Date: | 2007-03-19 13:55:38 |
| Message-ID: | 4246.1174312538@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> missing BYTE_ORDER definition for Solaris | 2007-01-10 14:18:23 | 1
> What is this BYTE_ORDER macro? Should I be using it instead of the
> AC_C_BIGENDIAN test in configure for the packed varlena patch?
Actually, if we start to rely on AC_C_BIGENDIAN, I'd prefer to see us
get rid of direct usages of BYTE_ORDER. It looks like only
contrib/pgcrypto is depending on it today, but we've got lots of
cruft in the include/port/ files supporting that.
>> row-ordering discrepancy in rowtypes test | 2007-02-10 03:00:02 | 3
> Is this because the test is fixed or unfixable?
It's fixed.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-02/msg00228.php
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-19 13:56:16 | Re: Indexam interface proposal |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-03-19 13:45:15 | Re: Buildfarm feature request: some way to track/classify failures |