| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, cary huang <hcary328(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |
| Date: | 2023-10-16 04:58:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20231016045804.c0@rfd.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 11:30:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:02 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I'm having a hard time not believing that this is a compiler bug.
> >> Looking back at 8d2a01ae12cd and its speculation that xlc is overly
> >> liberal about reordering code around sequence points ... I wonder
> >> if it'd help to do this calculation in a local variable, and only
> >> assign the final value to result->time ? But we have to reproduce
> >> the problem first.
>
> > If that can be shown I would vote for switching to /opt/IBM/xlc/16.1.0
> > and not changing a single bit of PostgreSQL.
>
> If switching to 16.1 removes the failure, I'd agree. It's hard
> to believe that any significant number of users still care about
> building PG with xlc 12.
Works for me. I've started a test run with the xlc version change.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2023-10-16 05:03:16 | RE: pg_upgrade's interaction with pg_resetwal seems confusing |
| Previous Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2023-10-16 04:51:24 | Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN |