Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Having seen zero reports of any numeric
> > > failures since we installed it, and seeing it takes >10x times longer
> > > than the other tests, I think it should be paired back. Do we really
> > > need 10 tests of each complex function? I think one would do the trick.
> >
> > A good point tho, I didn't submit a regression test that tries to ALTER 3
> > different non-existent tables to check for failures - one test was enough...
>
> That was my point. Is there much value in testing each function ten
> times. Anyway, seems only I care so I will drop it.
Yes there is value in it. There is conditional code in it
that depends on the values. I wrote that before (I said there
are possible carry, rounding etc. issues), and it looked to
me that you simply ignored these facts.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
