From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | SAKAIDA <sakaida(at)psn(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] regression bigtest needs very long time |
Date: | 1999-06-26 18:57:17 |
Message-ID: | 199906261857.OAA20236@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Just don't run bigtest. It is only for people who are having trouble
> > with the new numeric type.
>
> I don't mind too much that bigtest takes forever --- as you say,
> it shouldn't be run except by people who want a thorough test.
>
> But I *am* unhappy that the regular numeric test takes much longer than
> all the other regression tests put together. That's an unreasonable
> amount of effort spent on one feature, and it gets really annoying for
> someone like me who's in the habit of running the regress tests after
> any update. Is there anything this test is likely to catch that
> wouldn't get caught with a much narrower field width (say 10 digits
> instead of 30)?
Oh, I didn't realize this. We certainly should think about reducing the
time spent on it, though it is kind of lame to be testing numeric in a
precision that is less than the standard int4 type.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-06-27 04:18:25 | Re: [HACKERS] solution for psql segmentation fault ?? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-26 18:55:03 | Re: [HACKERS] Severe SUBSELECT bug in 6.5 CVS |