Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 21.11.25 17:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ah, there are several. It's not totally obvious perhaps where the
>> cause is. I'll attach the diffs just for the archives' sake.
> For clarification, does what you are showing mean that the regression
> tests have enough coverag
On 21.11.25 17:10, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
I have a distinct recollection that this comment exists because we
found that some platforms had a hypot() that got that edge case wrong.
I don't object to proceeding on the assumption that they all conform
to spec by now, but please make sure there's
On 21.11.25 15:03, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 2:50 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
+ * %z doesn't actually act differently from %Z on Windows.
Probably obsolete too, at least according to:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/reference/strftime-wcsftime-strftime-
I wrote:
> I have a distinct recollection that this comment exists because we
> found that some platforms had a hypot() that got that edge case wrong.
> I don't object to proceeding on the assumption that they all conform
> to spec by now, but please make sure there's at least one regression
> test
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I have been hunting down the last few pieces of code that made some
> obsolete claims about not being able to use C99 yet or needing to be
> compatible with pre-C99 or something like that. I found two obsolete
> comments and two places where we could now actually use
On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 2:50 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
+ * %z doesn't actually act differently from %Z on Windows.
Probably obsolete too, at least according to:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/reference/strftime-wcsftime-strftime-l-wcsftime-l?view=msvc-170
