Re: numeric_big in make check?

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> numeric_big has been left out of parallel_schedule, requiring EXTRA_TESTS to
> run it, since going in back in 1999 (AFAICT it was even the reason EXTRA_TESTS
> was invented).  The original commit states that it's huge, and it probably was.
> Today it runs faster than many tests we have in parallel_schedule, even on slow
> hardware like my ~5 year old laptop.  Repeated runs in CI at various parallel
> groups place it at 50% the runtime of triggers.sql and 25% of brin.sql.

> To make sure it's executed and not silently breaks, is it time to add this to
> the regular make check?

Or we could just flush it.  It's never detected a bug, and I think
you'd find that it adds zero code coverage (or if not, we could
fix that in a far more surgical and less expensive manner).

            regards, tom lane