Hi,
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Just don't run bigtest. It is only for people who are having trouble
> > > with the new numeric type.
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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.
At the end of regression normal test, the following message
is displayed.
"To run the optional huge test(s) too type 'make bigtest'"
Many users, especialy those who install "PostgreSQL" for the
first time, may type 'make bigtest' and may feel the PostgreSQL
unstable. Because the bigtest outputs no messages for long time
and seems to be no executing at the point of numeric testing.
Therefore, if it is not necessary for the general user to
execute "regression bigtest", I think that the message of
'make bigtest' should be removed or that the message should be
changed like "it takes several hours ....".
> > 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.
I think so too.
> > 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)?
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
--
Regards.
SAKAIDA Masaaki <sakaida@psn.co.jp>
Osaka, Japan