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

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:22 PM, 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? 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...

Yes, sorry, the e+000 stuff is from 959277a. This patch has visibly broken that:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jacana&dt=2015-03-21%2003%3A01%3A21
--
Michael