Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I think I made my point clear enough, that I consider calling
> > these functions just once is plain sloppy. But that's just
> > my opinion. What do others think?
>
> I don't have a problem with the current length of the numeric test.
> The original form of it (now shoved over to bigtests) did seem
> excessively slow to me ... but I can live with this one.
>
> I do agree that someone ought to reimplement numeric using base10k
> arithmetic ... but it's not bugging me so much that I'm likely
> to get around to it anytime soon myself ...
>
> Bruce, why is there no TODO item for that project?
Not sure. I was aware of it for a while. Added:
* Change NUMERIC data type to use base 10,000 internally
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@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
