Thread: OSX 10.2.2 and beta 5
I just downloaded beta 5 and ran through a stock
config and make. make check comes up with 1 failure
listed as ignored..
parallel group (16 tests): select_distinct_on
transactions random select_having subselect
select_into select_distinct portals arrays union case
select_implicit hash_index aggregates join btree_index
select_into ... ok
select_distinct ... ok
select_distinct_on ... ok
select_implicit ... ok
select_having ... ok
subselect ... ok
union ... ok
case ... ok
join ... ok
aggregates ... ok
transactions ... ok
random ... failed (ignored)
portals ... ok
arrays ... ok
btree_index ... ok
hash_index ... ok
test privileges ... ok
test misc ... ok
=================================================
88 of 89 tests passed, 1 failed test(s) ignored.
==================================================
The differences that caused some tests to fail can be
viewed in the
file `./regression.diffs'. A copy of the test summary
that you see
above is saved in the file `./regression.out'.
Anyone interested in the `./regression.out' file?
The binary was created with ./configure and make on a
single processor G4 OSX 10.2.2. No options.
Ted
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
"Random" randomly fails. It is OK. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore Petrosky wrote: > I just downloaded beta 5 and ran through a stock > config and make. make check comes up with 1 failure > listed as ignored.. > > parallel group (16 tests): select_distinct_on > transactions random select_having subselect > select_into select_distinct portals arrays union case > select_implicit hash_index aggregates join btree_index > select_into ... ok > select_distinct ... ok > select_distinct_on ... ok > select_implicit ... ok > select_having ... ok > subselect ... ok > union ... ok > case ... ok > join ... ok > aggregates ... ok > transactions ... ok > random ... failed (ignored) > portals ... ok > arrays ... ok > btree_index ... ok > hash_index ... ok > test privileges ... ok > test misc ... ok > > ================================================= > 88 of 89 tests passed, 1 failed test(s) ignored. > ================================================== > > The differences that caused some tests to fail can be > viewed in the > file `./regression.diffs'. A copy of the test summary > that you see > above is saved in the file `./regression.out'. > > > Anyone interested in the `./regression.out' file? > The binary was created with ./configure and make on a > single processor G4 OSX 10.2.2. No options. > > Ted > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site > http://webhosting.yahoo.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > "Random" randomly fails. It is OK. So why is it a regression test, then? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> "Random" randomly fails. It is OK.
> So why is it a regression test, then?
It's hard to see how you could test random() in a completely
deterministic fashion ...
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 15:18:58 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > >> "Random" randomly fails. It is OK. > > > So why is it a regression test, then? > > It's hard to see how you could test random() in a completely > deterministic fashion ... You could use the floor function and check that function call works and that returned values are in the range >= 0 and < 1 (the description just says between but this is the normal range). You could also do a couple of selects that compare random's output to each other to see if it is generating a constant. The odds of this happening by chance are very small. If you tie a couple of these together you should be able to reduce the chances to whatever you think is safe. The odds of the following returning true should be less than the chances of a hardware hiccup: select random() = random() and random() = random(); The following should always return 0 (assuming I am right about random being strictly less than 1): select floor(random()); You can probably come up with other tricks. For example for a large sample you should be able to put a bound on the average for which the probability of the average being outside that bound is comparable to the test for random returning constant values. The variance is something else that could be tested this way.