| From: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Buttafuoco <jim(at)contactbda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CSV arm check failure |
| Date: | 2005-01-06 17:13:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20050106171305.GA9144@l-t.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:39:14AM -0500, Jim Buttafuoco wrote:
> I couldn't get 2.4.27 to patch with the arm patches, so I downloaded 2.4.25 (with has CONFIG_FPE_NWFPE=y) and ALL
> tests passed. So I will file a bug report with Debian. We should also put something in the Postgresql readme about
> this issue.
I do not think its bug in Debian or kernel - it is expected and
documented behaviour of FastFPE to have less precision. Also if
you think of ARM usage scenarious it seems fine to use lighter
emulation.
The question is rather how to handle it in PostgreSQL
regression testing:
1) Document the need for NWFPE - which gives standard results.
2) Use FastFPE results on Linux/ARM.
3) Autodetect - ok, that was a joke.
I guess 1) is fine now. 2) should be done when FastFPE is
standard on Linux/ARM.
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-01-06 17:32:12 | Re: CSV arm check failure |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-01-06 17:06:08 | Re: Porting/platforms/buildfarm open issues |