Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think I made my point clear enough, that I consider calling
> > these functions just once is plain sloppy. But that's just
> > my opinion. What do others think?
>
> I don't have a problem with the current length of the numeric test.
> The original form of it (now shoved over to bigtests) did seem
> excessively slow to me ... but I can live with this one.
>
> I do agree that someone ought to reimplement numeric using base10k
> arithmetic ... but it's not bugging me so much that I'm likely
> to get around to it anytime soon myself ...
>
> Bruce, why is there no TODO item for that project?
Not sure. I was aware of it for a while. Added:
* Change NUMERIC data type to use base 10,000 internally
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
