Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems like pretty good evidence that we should remove the "ignored"
>> marking for the random test, and maybe remove that functionality from
>> pg_regress altogether. We could probably adjust the test to decrease
>> its risk-of-failure by another factor of ten or so, if anyone feels like
>> 0.005% failure probability is too high.

> I suppose that as far as the buildfarm goes it's okay that the test
> fails from time to time, but it may be worse from packagers' points of
> view, where a randomly failing test can wreck the whole building
> process. Is a 0.005% failure probability low enough that nobody will be
> bothered by that?

As an ex-packager, I think that's a couple orders of magnitude below where
anybody will notice it, let alone feel pain. There are other causes of
failure that will dwarf this one.

(You may recall that I used to bitch regularly about the failure
probabilities for mysql's regression tests --- but that was because
the probability of failure was on the order of 50%, when building
in Red Hat's buildfarm.)

regards, tom lane