On 22 June 2018 at 03:30, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think some coverage of the numerical aggregates is a good idea, so >> I've added some in the attached. I managed to get a parallel plan >> going with a query to onek, which is pretty cheap to execute. I didn't >> touch the bool aggregates. Maybe I should have done that too..? > > This sort of blunderbuss testing was exactly what I *didn't* want to do. > Not only is this adding about 20x as many cycles as we need (at least for > this specific numeric_poly_combine issue), but I'm quite afraid that the > float4 and/or float8 cases will show low-order-digit irreproducibility > in the buildfarm.
okay. My sniper rifle was locked away for the evening. I decided it was best to sleep before any careful aiming was required.
