> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Just don't run bigtest. It is only for people who are having trouble
> > with the new numeric type.
>
> I don't mind too much that bigtest takes forever --- as you say,
> it shouldn't be run except by people who want a thorough test.
>
> But I *am* unhappy that the regular numeric test takes much longer than
> all the other regression tests put together. That's an unreasonable
> amount of effort spent on one feature, and it gets really annoying for
> someone like me who's in the habit of running the regress tests after
> any update. Is there anything this test is likely to catch that
> wouldn't get caught with a much narrower field width (say 10 digits
> instead of 30)?
Oh, I didn't realize this. We certainly should think about reducing the
time spent on it, though it is kind of lame to be testing numeric in a
precision that is less than the standard int4 type.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
