Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates

On 22 March 2015 at 22:22, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On March 22, 2015 6:17:28 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier <
> michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >>> Pushed with that additional change. Let's see if the buildfarm
> >thinks.
> >>
> >> jacana, apparently alone among buildfarm members, does not like it.
> >
> >All the windows nodes don't pass tests with this patch, the difference
> >is in the exponential precision: e+000 instead of e+00.
>
> That's due to a different patch though, right?

Yes this is due to cc0d90b.

> When I checked earlier only jacana had problems due to this, and it looked
> like random memory was being output. It's interesting that that's on the
> one windows (not cygwin) critter that does the 128bit dance...
>

Yeah, I can't recreate the issue locally on my windows machine, but I may
try with gcc if I can get some time.

Regards

David Rowley