Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types
Date: 2018-08-17 18:56:31
Message-ID: 12819.1534532191@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> writes:
>> BTW how did we end up with the regression differences? Presumably you've
>> tried that on your machine and it passed. So if we adjust the expected
>> file, won't it fail on some other machines?

> I had another patch to check for -0 inside float{4,8}_{div,mul}(). I
> dropped it on the last set of patches, so the tests were broken. I
> get -0 as a result of -x * 0 both on Mac and Linux.

I'll bet a good deal of money that you'll find that does not hold
true across the whole buildfarm.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-08-17 19:57:32 Re: Pre-v11 appearances of the word "procedure" in v11 docs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-08-17 18:55:03 Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica / proof of concept