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