Re: [PATCH] random_normal function - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCH] random_normal function
Date
Msg-id 4000009.1674108095@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] random_normal function  (Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] random_normal function
List pgsql-hackers
Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> On 1/9/23 23:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, if this does bring the probability of failure down to the
>> one-in-a-billion range, I think we could also nuke the whole
>> "ignore:" business, simplifying pg_regress and allowing the
>> random test to be run in parallel with others.

> We have used the pg_sleep() function to interrupt a query at certain 
> execution phase. But on some platforms, especially in containers, the 
> query can vary execution time in so widely that the pg_sleep() timeout, 
> required to get rid of dependency on a query execution time, has become 
> unacceptable. So, the "ignore" option was the best choice.

But does such a test have any actual value?  If your test infrastructure
ignores the result, what makes you think you'd notice if the test did
indeed detect a problem?

I think "ignore:" was a kluge we put in twenty-plus years ago when our
testing standards were a lot lower, and it's way past time we got
rid of it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Modify the document of Logical Replication configuration settings