Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

On 01/11/2018 11:23 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: >> ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes: >> >>> The behaviour seems to have changed in 9.6: >> >> Indeed, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-9-6.html >> has the following entry: >> >>

Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes: > > > The behaviour seems to have changed in 9.6: > > Indeed, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-9-6.html > has the following entry: > > * Improve the accuracy of the ln(), log(), exp(),

Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

On 01/11/2018 07:44 AM, Sergei Kornilov wrote: > Hello > I am surprised, but i can confirm error on versions prior 9.6: on 9.5, 9.4, > 9.3 same error. On 9.6 and 10 query works correctly One of my tests (in fact, the one where I first noticed) was a build from git a couple days ago at

Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes: > The behaviour seems to have changed in 9.6: Indeed, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-9-6.html has the following entry: * Improve the accuracy of the ln(), log(), exp(), and pow() functions for type numeric (Dean

Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

Hello I am surprised, but i can confirm error on versions prior 9.6: on 9.5, 9.4, 9.3 same error. On 9.6 and 10 query works correctly All checked postgresql are x86_64 from postgresql debian repository: http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt/ jessie-pgdg main postgres=# select 0.5678::numeric

Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

Tom Lane writes: > Chapman Flack writes: >> I see there are some tests in src/test/regress: >> [ that don't work for me ] >> Is there some special GUC setting in effect during the make check >> that would be different in my ordinary session? What else

Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

On 01/11/18 02:07, Tom Lane wrote: > Hm, it won't help your sanity to know that those cases pass fine > for me, interactively, on a couple of different machines: > ... > You sure you're using a stock build of Postgres? No handmade > versions of operator ^ lying around? Interesting thought

Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

Chapman Flack writes: > I see there are some tests in src/test/regress: > [ that don't work for me ] > Is there some special GUC setting in effect during the make check > that would be different in my ordinary session? What else could > be different? This is making me

numeric regression test passes, but why?

I see there are some tests in src/test/regress: sql/numeric.sql expected/numeric.out They pass. I see "numeric ... ok" in a make check. I do not doubt they are being run, because if I edit numeric.sql and fudge some digits, say around -- cases that used to error out select 0.12 ^ (-25); select