From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Mark Wong <mark(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Odd 9.4, 9.3 buildfarm failure on s390x |
Date: | 2018-10-01 16:50:16 |
Message-ID: | 9873.1538412616@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-10-01 12:13:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. So our choices are
>>
>> (1) Retain the current restriction on what sort comparators can
>> produce. Find all the places where memcmp's result is returned
>> directly, and fix them. (I wonder if strcmp has same issue.)
>>
>> (2) Drop the restriction. This'd require at least changing the
>> DESC correction, and maybe other things. I'm not sure what the
>> odds would be of finding everyplace we need to check.
>>
>> Neither one is sounding very pleasant, or maintainable.
> (2) seems more maintainable to me (or perhaps less unmaintainable). It's
> infrastructure, rather than every datatype + support out there...
I guess we could set up some testing infrastructure: hack int4cmp
and/or a couple other popular comparators so that they *always*
return INT_MIN, 0, or INT_MAX, and then see what falls over.
I'm fairly sure that btree, as well as the sort code proper,
has got an issue here.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matteo Beccati | 2018-10-01 17:25:45 | Re: [HACKERS] kqueue |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-10-01 16:26:56 | Re: Odd 9.4, 9.3 buildfarm failure on s390x |