On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On March 22, 2015 6:17:28 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>>> Pushed with that additional change. Let's see if the buildfarm >>thinks. >>> >>> jacana, apparently alone among buildfarm members, does not like it. >> >>All the windows nodes don't pass tests with this patch, the difference >>is in the exponential precision: e+000 instead of e+00. > > That's due to a different patch though, right? When I checked earlier only > jacana had problems due to this, and it looked like random memory was being > output. It's interesting that that's on the one windows (not cygwin) critter > that does the 128bit dance...
Yes, sorry, the e+000 stuff is from 959277a. This patch has visibly broken that: http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jacana&dt=2015-03-21%2003%3A01%3A21 -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
