| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: more C99 cleanup |
| Date: | 2025-11-25 05:53:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1136414.1764050035@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> On 21.11.25 17:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ah, there are several. It's not totally obvious perhaps where the
>> cause is. I'll attach the diffs just for the archives' sake.
> For clarification, does what you are showing mean that the regression
> tests have enough coverage of the hypot() edge cases?
We are definitely covering it. It's just that the present tests
fail in a way that wouldn't scream "hypot is broken" to some
future hacker dealing with such a failure. Not sure if that's
worth worrying about; but I'd lean to not worrying unless you
commit and we see such failures in the buildfarm.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maxim Orlov | 2025-11-25 06:12:16 | Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-11-25 05:52:42 | Re: headerscheck ccache support |