Re: Odd 9.4, 9.3 buildfarm failure on s390x

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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