Hello hackers, 11.11.2020 04:04, Michael Paquier wrote: > And this configuration matches exactly what you have with the host > where the test passed. > > Now I do see a difference in the Windows 10 build involved, 10.0.19041 > fails but 10.0.18363 passes. I find rather hard to buy that this is > directly a Postgres bug. The compiler version is the same, so the > issue seems to be related to the way the code compiled is > interpreted. > -- > Michael I've managed to reproduce that fail on Windows 10 Build 19042.631 (20H2). The "actual rows" value printed there is calculated as: double rows = planstate->instrument->ntuples / nloops; and with a simple debugging code, I've found that planstate->instrument->ntuples in that case is 3, and nloops is 5. So rows = 0.6.
Surprisingly, printf("%.0f", 0.6); in this Windows build prints 0. Best regards, Alexander