On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm. As the test stands, it requires a float-timestamps implementation
> to store a value of 3600000610.000001 seconds, which is 16 decimal digits
The test value has 1e9 hours, which is 3.6e12 seconds, plus 6 more
digits for microseconds is 18 decimal digits. If, as you say, 15 digits
can be reliably extracted from a double, then we need to cut three zeros
(which matches my simple test of just removing zeros until it achieves
the microsecond precision).
> However, removing *any* digits seems like it mostly defeats the point of
> the test. Maybe we should just lose the test?
The reason I thought it might still have some value is because it would
have still caught the problem that 4318daec patched. But I'm fine with
removing it.
(Though, I should add a comment indicating that it's not testing the
true maximum length.)
> A different solution is to add a variant expected-output file, though
> I'm not terribly thrilled with that answer.
Nor am I.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
