Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD
Date: 2019-01-24 16:35:25
Message-ID: 11057.1548347725@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
>> I had in mind something more like the attached.

> Yep.
> I'm not too happy that it mixes API levels, and about the int/double/int
> path.
> Attached an updated version which relies on pg_jrand48 instead.

Hm, I'm not sure that's really an improvement, but I pushed it like that
(and the other change along with it).

> Also, as
> the pseudo-random state is fully controlled, seeded test results are
> deterministic so the expected value can be fully checked.

I found that the "expected value" was different in v11 than HEAD,
which surprised me. It looks like the reason is that HEAD sets up
more/different RandomStates from the same seed than v11 did. Not
sure if it's a good thing for this behavior to change across versions.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-01-24 16:37:41 Re: problems with foreign keys on partitioned tables
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2019-01-24 16:17:46 Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg