Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests

Tom Lane wrote:

> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Now that we know numeric is working, can we make the test run faster in
> >> the default mode?
>
> > It is already down to 100 digits after the decimal point. I
> > don't want to lower it too much, but maybe 30 or 50 are
> > enough too - no?
>
> Since multiply and so on are presumably O(N^2), cutting the precision
> to 30 might cut the runtime by almost a factor of 10.
>
> Jan probably has a better idea than the rest of us whether a test of
> 100, or 30, or 10 digits is likely to expose bugs that would not be
> exposed by a test with less precision --- that depends on whether the

I created a new default numeric test using numbers of range
10,10 as input only. It doesn't save that much of time as you
expect, but you're right anyways.

Will commit it later, together with the new parallel test
suite.

BTW: The parallel problems I encountered aren't anything.
Starting the postmaster with -D... isn't the same as setting
PGDATA environment - as it IMHO should be. It happened that I
killed the test-install postmaster, started with -D pointing
into my temp dirs, with SIGKILL. It corrupted the pg_control
file of my default installation :-}

And if you do not have an initialized data directory at the
compiled in default location, postmaster doesn't startup with
-D at all.

Vadim, could you take a look at it?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# 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) #