Tom Lane wrote:
> I hope that the bug will get fixed in due course, but even if they
> respond pretty quickly it will be years before the problem disappears
> from every copy of gcc in the field. So I'm thinking that it would
> behoove us to install a workaround, now that we've characterized the
>
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:26:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:24:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> While s390x is still not quite mainstream, at least I can get
> >> access to one ;-).
>
> > Do you also have access to z/OS with Unix System Services
David Fetter writes:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:24:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While s390x is still not quite mainstream, at least I can get
>> access to one ;-).
> Do you also have access to z/OS with Unix System Services?
No, Red Hat's machines run RHEL ;-)
>> What I am thinking is that
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:24:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We have seen several previous reports of regression test failures
> due to division by zero causing SIGFPE, even though the code should
> never reach the division command:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-11/msg00180.php
We have seen several previous reports of regression test failures
due to division by zero causing SIGFPE, even though the code
should never reach the division command:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-11/msg00180.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-11/msg00032.php
http
