From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, cary huang <hcary328(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |
Date: | 2023-10-18 00:02:13 |
Message-ID: | ZS8gha6qJPJADZKe@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:45:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Whoops, no: for negative starting values we'd need truncate-towards-
> minus-infinity division whereas C99 specifies truncate-towards-zero.
> However, the attached does pass for me on cfarm111 as well as my
> usual dev machine.
I guess that the following trick could be used for the negative case,
with one modulo followed by one extra addition:
if (result->time < INT64CONST(0))
{
result->time %= USECS_PER_DAY;
result->time += USECS_PER_DAY;
}
> Presumably this is a pre-existing bug that also appears in back
> branches. But in the interests of science I propose that we
> back-patch only the test case and see which machine(s) fail it
> before back-patching the code change.
Sure, as you see fit.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-10-18 00:35:17 | Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-10-17 23:40:45 | Re: [PoC/RFC] Multiple passwords, interval expirations |