pgsql-server/src/test/regress sql/union.sql ex ...

Started by Tom Laneover 22 years ago4 messagescomitters
Jump to latest
#1Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us

CVSROOT: /cvsroot
Module name: pgsql-server
Changes by: tgl@svr1.postgresql.org 03/11/02 18:35:26

Modified files:
src/test/regress/sql: union.sql
src/test/regress/expected: union.out

Log message:
Adjust data types in some of the UNION tests to avoid potentially
platform-dependent results, as per example from Larry Rosenman.

#2Peter Eisentraut
peter_e@gmx.net
In reply to: Tom Lane (#1)
Re: pgsql-server/src/test/regress sql/union.sql ex ...

Tom Lane writes:

Log message:
Adjust data types in some of the UNION tests to avoid potentially
platform-dependent results, as per example from Larry Rosenman.

The join test still fails on UnixWare:

*** ./expected/join.out Thu Sep 25 01:58:06 2003
--- ./results/join.out  Tue Nov  4 13:12:17 2003
***************
*** 1732,1739 ****
       | 6 | 6 | six   |
       | 7 | 7 | seven |
       | 8 | 8 | eight |
-      |   |   | null  |
       |   | 0 | zero  |
  (13 rows)
  SELECT '' AS "xxx", *
--- 1732,1739 ----
       | 6 | 6 | six   |
       | 7 | 7 | seven |
       | 8 | 8 | eight |
       |   | 0 | zero  |
+      |   |   | null  |
  (13 rows)

SELECT '' AS "xxx", *
***************
*** 1752,1759 ****
| 6 | 6 | six |
| 7 | 7 | seven |
| 8 | 8 | eight |
- | | | null |
| | 0 | zero |
(13 rows)

  SELECT '' AS "xxx", *
--- 1752,1759 ----
       | 6 | 6 | six   |
       | 7 | 7 | seven |
       | 8 | 8 | eight |
       |   | 0 | zero  |
+      |   |   | null  |
  (13 rows)
  SELECT '' AS "xxx", *
***************
*** 1793,1800 ****
  -----+---+---+-------+----
       | 0 |   | zero  |
       | 1 | 4 | one   | -1
-      | 2 | 3 | two   |  2
       | 2 | 3 | two   |  4
       | 3 | 2 | three | -3
       | 4 | 1 | four  |
       | 5 | 0 | five  | -5
--- 1793,1800 ----
  -----+---+---+-------+----
       | 0 |   | zero  |
       | 1 | 4 | one   | -1
       | 2 | 3 | two   |  4
+      | 2 | 3 | two   |  2
       | 3 | 2 | three | -3
       | 4 | 1 | four  |
       | 5 | 0 | five  | -5
***************
*** 1815,1822 ****
  -----+---+---+-------+----
       | 0 |   | zero  |
       | 1 | 4 | one   | -1
-      | 2 | 3 | two   |  2
       | 2 | 3 | two   |  4
       | 3 | 2 | three | -3
       | 4 | 1 | four  |
       | 5 | 0 | five  | -5
--- 1815,1822 ----
  -----+---+---+-------+----
       | 0 |   | zero  |
       | 1 | 4 | one   | -1
       | 2 | 3 | two   |  4
+      | 2 | 3 | two   |  2
       | 3 | 2 | three | -3
       | 4 | 1 | four  |
       | 5 | 0 | five  | -5

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net

#3Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Peter Eisentraut (#2)
Re: pgsql-server/src/test/regress sql/union.sql ex ...

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

Tom Lane writes:

Log message:
Adjust data types in some of the UNION tests to avoid potentially
platform-dependent results, as per example from Larry Rosenman.

The join test still fails on UnixWare:

Yeah. I intended to leave that unfixed, since row-ordering differences
are specifically documented as a legitimate platform-specific
difference.

Our alternatives would be to add enough ORDER BY clauses to constrain
the results (which I don't want to do because it would limit the set
of join plans testable by the tests), or to add another result file
for this test. I'd be in favor of the latter if there were more than
one platform showing this behavior, or if I thought that UnixWare's
behavior wouldn't change again next time SCO decides to tweak qsort.

regards, tom lane

#4Peter Eisentraut
peter_e@gmx.net
In reply to: Tom Lane (#3)
Re: pgsql-server/src/test/regress sql/union.sql ex ...

Tom Lane writes:

Our alternatives would be to add enough ORDER BY clauses to constrain
the results (which I don't want to do because it would limit the set
of join plans testable by the tests), or to add another result file
for this test. I'd be in favor of the latter if there were more than
one platform showing this behavior, or if I thought that UnixWare's
behavior wouldn't change again next time SCO decides to tweak qsort.

Fair enough. I just thought, reading your commit message, that you had
set out to completely fix it. I say we leave it as is for now.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net