Unix Technical Forum

tsearch2 changes need backpatching?

This is a discussion on tsearch2 changes need backpatching? within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> The buildfarm member penguin (Debian, ARM) has been building the HEAD branch for the most part happily since late ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > pgsql Hackers

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:34 AM
Andrew Dunstan
 
Posts: n/a
Default tsearch2 changes need backpatching?


The buildfarm member penguin (Debian, ARM) has been building the HEAD
branch for the most part happily since late January, but keeps failing
on the REL8_0_STABLE branch on tsearch2. It appears that some changes
made around 24-27 January fixed it for this architecture/OS. Looking in
the committers log, I see:


improve support of agglutinative languages (query with compound words)


and


Change
typedef struct {} WordEntryPos;
to
typedef uint16 WordEntryPos


Could one of these inadvertantly fix the problem we are seeing here? Do we need to backpatch to fix REL8_0_STABLE, or apply some other fix?


cheers

andrew







---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:34 AM
Tom Lane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> The buildfarm member penguin (Debian, ARM) has been building the HEAD
> branch for the most part happily since late January, but keeps failing
> on the REL8_0_STABLE branch on tsearch2. It appears that some changes
> made around 24-27 January fixed it for this architecture/OS. Looking in
> the committers log, I see:
> ...
> Could one of these inadvertantly fix the problem we are seeing here?
> Do we need to backpatch to fix REL8_0_STABLE, or apply some other fix?


Nothing inadvertent about it. The changelog entry is

2005-01-25 07:36 teodor

* contrib/tsearch2/: query.c, rank.c, ts_stat.c, tsvector.c,
tsvector.h, tsvector_op.c: Change typedef struct {} WordEntryPos;
to typedef uint16 WordEntryPos according to
http://www.pgsql.ru/db/mw/msg.html?mid=2035188

Require re-fill all tsvector fields and reindex tsvector indexes.

and if you check the referenced message, the change was made
specifically to deal with this portability issue. However, we cannot
backpatch the change without forcing initdb (or at least reindex of
tsearch2 indexes), even on architectures that are not currently broken.
So I'm afraid penguin is out of luck --- the 8.0 branch has to stay
the way it is.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:34 AM
Andrew Dunstan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?



Tom Lane wrote:

> However, we cannot
>backpatch the change without forcing initdb (or at least reindex of
>tsearch2 indexes), even on architectures that are not currently broken.
>So I'm afraid penguin is out of luck --- the 8.0 branch has to stay
>the way it is.
>
>
>
>


With that exception, we now have only one machine marked active that has
consistently failed on HEAD or REL8_0_STABLE: osprey (NetBSD 2.0 gcc
3.3.3 m68k)

I have asked its owner to look into what the problems might be.

I am about to start publishing owner email addresses (in a hard to
harvest way) so that hackers can contact them directly about problems
seen on their machines. This was raised about a week ago and nobody has
raised an objection.

cheers

andrew


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:34 AM
Oleg Bartunov
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>
> The buildfarm member penguin (Debian, ARM) has been building the HEAD branch
> for the most part happily since late January, but keeps failing on the
> REL8_0_STABLE branch on tsearch2. It appears that some changes made around
> 24-27 January fixed it for this architecture/OS. Looking in the committers
> log, I see:
>
>
> improve support of agglutinative languages (query with compound words)
>
>
> and
>
>
> Change
> typedef struct {} WordEntryPos;
> to
> typedef uint16 WordEntryPos
>
>
> Could one of these inadvertantly fix the problem we are seeing here? Do we


NO, at least last change is incompatible with STABLE

> need to backpatch to fix REL8_0_STABLE, or apply some other fix?
>


some other fix.

>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>


Regards,
Oleg
__________________________________________________ ___________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:34 AM
Tom Lane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> With that exception, we now have only one machine marked active that has
> consistently failed on HEAD or REL8_0_STABLE: osprey (NetBSD 2.0 gcc
> 3.3.3 m68k)


> I have asked its owner to look into what the problems might be.


The failure on HEAD appears to be a configuration problem (SHMMAX too
small or some such). I'm not sure why the 8.0 branch doesn't fail
likewise (maybe HEAD's shmem request is just over the boundary?).
The contrib failure in 8.0 is something we had decided not to try to
fix, IIRC, given that tsearch is going away anyway.

Is it worth trying to fix things so that the buildfarm skips tests that
are known to fail and not deemed worth fixing?

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com