Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates

From: David Rowley <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates
Date: 2015-03-22 05:27:10
Message-ID: CAHoyFK-DQh_Uf7hb4jKBrr2nDufpFdRkskapTyzwjQV=AP7qJg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 22 March 2015 at 18:17, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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.
>

It looks like there's some other problems there too, but for the
exponential issue, I posted a patch here:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvoRDz8kCdfYzgRCPDEfLMqK0F6U_78nJ-JajxyJ7ufvHA@mail.gmail.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-03-22 05:42:56 Re: Zero-padding and zero-masking fixes for to_char(float)
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-03-22 05:22:25 Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates