int64-timestamp-dependent test vs. --disable-integer-timestamps

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: int64-timestamp-dependent test vs. --disable-integer-timestamps
Date: 2019-11-09 17:06:33
Message-ID: 6437.1573319193@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits a7145f6bc et al. added a test to verify integer overflow
detection in interval_mul. The buildfarm has now reminded me that
you're not going to get integer overflow if timestamps ain't integers,
cf
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mandrill&dt=2019-11-08%2019%3A42%3A32

I think the most expedient answer is just to remove that test case
in the pre-v10 branches. It's already served its purpose by showing
that the rest of the buildfarm is OK. I'd work harder on this if
--disable-integer-timestamps were still a live option, but it's
hard to justify any complicated solution.

regards, tom lane

[ wanders away wondering if we should have more than one critter testing
--disable-integer-timestamps ]

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2019-11-09 19:48:11 proposal: minscale, rtrim, btrim functions for numeric
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-11-09 16:08:14 Re: CountDBSubscriptions check in dropdb