| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Clément Prévost <prevostclement(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
| Date: | 2016-06-20 23:05:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20160620230540.GA72135@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-06-20 23:47:06 | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-06-20 22:59:25 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |