From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: int64-timestamp-dependent test vs. --disable-integer-timestamps
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:06:33 -0500
Message-ID: <6437.1573319193@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
Commits a7145f6bc et al. added a test to verify integer overflow
detection in interval_mul. The buildfarm has now reminded me that
you're not going to get integer overflow if timestamps ain't integers,
cf
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mandrill&dt=2019-11-08%2019%3A42%3A32
I think the most expedient answer is just to remove that test case
in the pre-v10 branches. It's already served its purpose by showing
that the rest of the buildfarm is OK. I'd work harder on this if
--disable-integer-timestamps were still a live option, but it's
hard to justify any complicated solution.
regards, tom lane
[ wanders away wondering if we should have more than one critter testing
--disable-integer-timestamps ]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: int64-timestamp-dependent test vs. --disable-integer-timestamps
In-Reply-To: <6437.1573319193@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox