> I fixed almost all mentioned issues (that I understand)
If you don't understand you might ask, or at least say. That way I know you've noticed my remarks and I don't have to repeat them.
I have 2 remaining suggestions.
1) As previously suggested: Consider moving all the code you added to numeric.c to right after the scale() related code. This is equivalent to what was done in pg_proc.dat and regression tests where all the scale related stuff is in one place in the file.
2) Now that the function is called min_scale() it might be nice if your "minscale" variable in numeric.c was named "min_scale".
I don't feel particularly strongly about either of the above but think them a slight improvement.
done
I also wonder whether all the trim_scale() tests are now necessary, but not enough to make any suggestions. Especially because, well, tests are good.
I don't think so tests should be minimalistic - there can be some redundancy to coverage some less probable size effects of some future changes. More - there is a small symmetry with min_scale tests - and third argument - some times I use tests (result part) as "documentation". But I have not any problem to reduce tests if there will be requirement to do it.
Regards
Pavel
Regards,
Karl <kop@meme.com> Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward." -- Robert A. Heinlein