On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 00:35, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW this is reproducible on my local Debian/gcc box with -m32,
Confirmed, thanks for looking. I can reproduce it on my machine with
-m32. It's somewhat annoying that the buildfarm didn't pick it up
sooner :-(
On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 08:28, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:06:16AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > I see two simple approaches:
> >
> > (1) use another PRNG inside pgbench, eg Knuth's which was used in some
> > previous submission and is very simple and IMHO better than the rand48
> > stuff.
> >
> > (2) extend pg_*rand48() to provide an unsigned 64 bits out of the 48 bits
> > state.
>
> Or, (3) remove this test? I am not quite sure what there is to gain
> with this extra test considering all the other tests with permute()
> already present in this script.
Yes, I think removing the test is the best option. It was originally
added because there was a separate code path for larger permutation
sizes that needed testing, but that's no longer the case so the test
really isn't adding anything.
Regards,
Dean
