Re: [PATCH] random_normal function

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random_normal function
Date: 2023-01-09 02:17:21
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Also, I tried running the new random.sql regression cases over
> and over, and found that the "not all duplicates" test fails about
> one time in 100000 or so. We could probably tolerate that given
> that the random test is marked "ignore" in parallel_schedule, but
> I thought it best to add one more iteration so we could knock the
> odds down.

Hmm ... it occurred to me to try the same check on the existing
random() tests (attached), and darn if they don't fail even more
often, usually within 50K iterations. So maybe we should rethink
that whole thing.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
test-random-test.sql text/plain 1014 bytes

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2023-01-09 02:31:37 Re: doc: add missing "id" attributes to extension packaging page
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-01-09 01:49:20 Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation