On 22 March 2015 at 22:22, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On March 22, 2015 6:17:28 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.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
