Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: numeric_big test

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: numeric_big test
Date: 2008-10-03 12:28:15
Message-ID: 22205.1223036895@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The numeric_big regression test was added many years ago for the NUMERIC 
>   implementation but was not put in the default test set because it was 
> too slow.  Now my tests show, it is really not slower than some of the 
> other slow tests (e.g., stats, tablespace), so perhaps time has caught 
> up with us and we can now test it by default.

The other side of the coin is what would it possibly tell us that is
worth any extra cycles at all?  We do run it (at least I do) when
touching the numeric datatype.  Given the lack of machine dependence in
that code, it seems unlikely that running numeric_big at other times
would turn up anything.  I can't see that it's worth slowing down
everyone's regression tests for.

(As somebody who frequently runs the regression tests dozens of times a
day, I grudge any unnecessarily expensive testing...)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-10-03 12:37:07
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function.
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2008-10-03 11:27:50
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group