Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates

On March 22, 2015 10:34:04 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
>wrote:
>> On March 22, 2015 6:17:28 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier
><michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>>> Pushed with that additional change. Let's see if the buildfarm
>>>thinks.
>>>>
>>>> jacana, apparently alone among buildfarm members, does not like it.
>>>
>>>All the windows nodes don't pass tests with this patch, the
>difference
>>>is in the exponential precision: e+000 instead of e+00.
>>
>> That's due to a different patch though, right? When I checked earlier
>only jacana had problems due to this, and it looked like random memory
>was being output. It's interesting that that's on the one windows (not
>cygwin) critter that does the 128bit dance...
>
>Yes, sorry, the e+000 stuff is from 959277a. This patch has visibly
>broken that:
>http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jacana&dt=2015-03-21%2003%3A01%3A21

That's the stuff looking like random memory that I talk about above...

-- 
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services