From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 16:26:56 |
Message-ID: | 20181001162656.4fvv6bshcee325oh@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-10-01 12:13:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2018-10-01 11:58:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Oooh ... apparently, on that platform, memcmp() is willing to produce
> >> INT_MIN in some cases. That's not a safe value for a sort comparator
> >> to produce --- we explicitly say that somewhere, IIRC.
>
> > Hm, that'd be pretty painful - memcmp() isn't guaranteed to return
> > anything smaller. And we use memcmp in a fair number of comparators.
>
> 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...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-01 16:50:16 | Re: Odd 9.4, 9.3 buildfarm failure on s390x |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-01 16:13:57 | Re: Odd 9.4, 9.3 buildfarm failure on s390x |