Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 10/10/2023 13:31, Bowen Shi wrote:
>> I noticed that in the `check_GUC_init` function, there is a direct
>> comparison using the != operator for two double values, which seems
>> problematic.
> No, the compile-time initial values should match exactly.
Right. The
You're right, I made a mistake.
Thanks for your explanation.
On 10/10/2023 13:31, Bowen Shi wrote:
Dears,
I noticed that in the `check_GUC_init` function, there is a direct
comparison using the != operator for two double values, which seems
problematic.
I wrote this patch to fix this.
No, the compile-time initial values should match exactly.
--
Heikki
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 12:33, Bowen Shi wrote:
>
> Dears,
>
> I noticed that in the `check_GUC_init` function, there is a direct
> comparison using the != operator for two double values, which seems
> problematic.
I don't think I understand the problem. The code checks that the
dynamic initializa
