| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3) |
| Date: | 2018-03-17 18:32:36 |
| Message-ID: | 8985.1521311556@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On the current branch just using the new overflow safe functions in
> int.h should work. But unless we are OK leaving this broken in the back
> branches, or want to backport the functionality, that's probably not
> sufficient.
Yeah ... I don't like either of the last two things, so probably we should
go with the patch as I had it. Yours might perform a shade better on
compilers with the built-in, but it'll be a lot worse on those without.
What I was wondering about was whether to back-patch a test case.
It doesn't seem really necessary, and we'd have to put it someplace
else than where it is in HEAD, so I'm leaning against.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-03-17 18:33:01 | Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3) |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2018-03-17 18:28:22 | Re: MCV lists for highly skewed distributions |