Re: [PATCHES] guc

Tom Lane writes:

> [ raises eyebrow ] To my mind that was one of the principal reasons
> for working on such a thing at all. If you don't want to allow this,
> then what alternative solution do you have for our geometry regression
> test mess? (Defining it as not a mess won't fly.)

I did some investigation and noticed that the different geometry expected
files differ in the same 5 groups of places (or less), and in 4 of those
places there are only two possible variations. So that at least gives me
the idea that perhaps the geometry test could be split up in two or three
tests, and that would probably reduce the relative number of "nonstandard"
expected files we'd need.

One difference case is a system failing to implement negative zeros.
Setting the output precision won't fix that.

Actually, I just took a peak into include/utils/geo_decls.h, and the
definiton of EPSILON at the top leaves me to think that printing out
anything more than 6 significant digits is nonsense anyway. Numerical
analysts would probably shudder.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net