On 01/11/18 11:30, Chapman Flack wrote:
> And indeed, my starting message in this thread was that, even in my
> recent (e35dba475a440f73dccf9ed1fd61e3abc6ee61db) build, make check
> *succeeds*, and for all I can tell, that test *is* executed (it shows
> up in the log, and if I re-run it with digit
On 01/11/2018 11:23 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
>>
>>> The behaviour seems to have changed in 9.6:
>>
>> Indeed, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-9-6.html
>> has the following entry:
>>
>>
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
>
> > The behaviour seems to have changed in 9.6:
>
> Indeed, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-9-6.html
> has the following entry:
>
> * Improve the accuracy of the ln(), log(), exp(), a
On 01/11/2018 07:44 AM, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
> I am surprised, but i can confirm error on versions prior 9.6: on 9.5, 9.4,
> 9.3 same error. On 9.6 and 10 query works correctly
One of my tests (in fact, the one where I first noticed) was a build
from git a couple days ago at e35dba475a4
ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
> The behaviour seems to have changed in 9.6:
Indeed, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-9-6.html
has the following entry:
* Improve the accuracy of the ln(), log(), exp(), and pow() functions
for type numeric (Dean Ras
Hello
I am surprised, but i can confirm error on versions prior 9.6: on 9.5, 9.4, 9.3
same error. On 9.6 and 10 query works correctly
All checked postgresql are x86_64 from postgresql debian repository:
http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt/ jessie-pgdg main
postgres=# select 0.5678::numeric o
Tom Lane writes:
> Chapman Flack writes:
>> I see there are some tests in src/test/regress:
>> [ that don't work for me ]
>> Is there some special GUC setting in effect during the make check
>> that would be different in my ordinary session? What else could
>> be different? This is making me que
On 01/11/18 02:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, it won't help your sanity to know that those cases pass fine
> for me, interactively, on a couple of different machines:
> ...
> You sure you're using a stock build of Postgres? No handmade
> versions of operator ^ lying around?
Interesting thought
A
Chapman Flack writes:
> I see there are some tests in src/test/regress:
> [ that don't work for me ]
> Is there some special GUC setting in effect during the make check
> that would be different in my ordinary session? What else could
> be different? This is making me question my sanity.
Hm, it w
I see there are some tests in src/test/regress:
sql/numeric.sql
expected/numeric.out
They pass. I see "numeric ... ok" in a make check.
I do not doubt they are being run, because if I edit numeric.sql
and fudge some digits, say around
-- cases that used to error out
select 0.12 ^ (-25);
select
10 matches
Mail list logo