From: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Repost: FastFPE results for Linux/ARM |
Date: | 2005-02-11 18:47:58 |
Message-ID: | 20050211184758.GA26176@l-t.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:08:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> > On Linux/ARM PostgreSQL may encounter 2 types of floating point emulation:
> > 1) standard precision: Linux/NWFPE, GCC soft-float
> > 2) reduced precision: Linux/FastFPE
>
> I don't really see why we should consider the latter as a "pass".
> The regression tests exist in part to inform you when you are using
> a substandard platform. Lately it seems that people have adopted the
> goal that all the tests should "pass" no matter what. I fundamentally
> disagree with that.
Well, the main problem is the confusion a failure causes. How
should a user decide whether he can run the database safely or
not, after a failed regression test? Or even what the reason
for failure was?
FastFPE on ARM is expected and seems to belong to "dont worry"
category. And I dont like saying: "Couple of regression failures
are normal".
Although I can understand that 'reduced precision' may sound
worrysome to lot of people. Maybe there should be new class
of failures in pg_regress: "expected failures" - which still
count as failures but have little note explaining the problem
so user can decide about the severity.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2005-02-11 21:53:51 | Re: [Fwd: Re: [DOCS] How the planner uses statistics] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-11 17:08:22 | Re: Repost: FastFPE results for Linux/ARM |