Hello hackers,
11.11.2020 04:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
> And this configuration matches exactly what you have with the host
> where the test passed.
>
> Now I do see a difference in the Windows 10 build involved, 10.0.19041
> fails but 10.0.18363 passes. I find rather hard to buy that this is
> directly a Postgres bug. The compiler version is the same, so the
> issue seems to be related to the way the code compiled is
> interpreted.
> --
> Michael
I've managed to reproduce that fail on Windows 10 Build 19042.631 (20H2).
The "actual rows" value printed there is calculated as:
double rows = planstate->instrument->ntuples / nloops;
and with a simple debugging code, I've found that
planstate->instrument->ntuples in that case is 3, and nloops is 5. So
rows = 0.6.
Surprisingly, printf("%.0f", 0.6); in this Windows build prints 0.
Best regards,
Alexander
