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

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, 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 16:45:49
Message-ID: 201901241645.e5syn5lxjldb@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Jan-24, Tom Lane wrote:

> > 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.

The rationale behind this was that some internal uses of random numbers
messed up the determinism of user-invoked random functions; 409231919443
commit message says

While at it, use separate random state for thread administratrivia such
as deciding which script to run, how long to delay for throttling, or
whether to log a message when sampling; this not only makes these tasks
independent of each other, but makes the actual thread run

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2019-01-24 17:14:41 Built-in connection pooler
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-01-24 16:37:41 Re: problems with foreign keys on partitioned tables