> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > SAKAIDA wrote:
> > > However, I think that there is no necessity of calculating the
> > > value of 1000 digits in the 'LOG' function.
> > >
> > numeric/decimal is a new type for this release. I assume this extra
> > processing will be removed once we are sure it works.
> Thank you for your reply. At the next version, I hope that
> 'regression test/bigtest' ends in the short time.
> The patch as an example which I considered is the following.
> If this patch is applied, the processing which requires 1.5 hours
> in the current ends for 5 minutes.
The test was intended to check the internal low level
functions of the NUMERIC datatype against MANY possible
values. That's the reason for the high precision resulting in
this runtime. That was a wanted side effect, not a bug!
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hub.Org News Admin||Date: 1999-06-28 09:32:18|
|Previous:||From: Vadim Mikheev||Date: 1999-06-28 01:22:08|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] fsynch of pg_log write..|