Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates
| От | David Rowley |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAApHDvqvx_t3FRrn34cuFkfvBQ0FMO2_yRvB3q3dpW3TXeiM0g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 March 2015 at 22:22, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
That's due to a different patch though, right?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.
Yes this is due to cc0d90b.
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...
Yeah, I can't recreate the issue locally on my windows machine, but I may try with gcc if I can get some time.
Regards
David Rowley
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: