Re: Repost: FastFPE results for Linux/ARM

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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