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

From Andrey Lepikhov
Subject Re: [PATCH] random_normal function
Date
Msg-id 72017e35-9b16-9223-d785-3e5a452f186a@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] random_normal function  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] random_normal function
List pgsql-hackers
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.
With 'ignore' option we get used to cover by tests some of the time 
dependent features, such as "statement_timeout", 
"idle_in_transaction_session_timeout", usage of user timeouts in 
extensions and so on.

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.

For Now, Do we only have the "isolation tests" option to create stable 
execution time-dependent tests now? Or I'm not aware about some test 
machinery?

-- 
Regards
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ankit Kumar Pandey
Date:
Subject: Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply