Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> Given these results, I do not think that it is useful to change
> random_zipfian TAP test parameter from 2.5 to something else.
I'm not following this argument. The test case is basically useless
for its intended purpose with that parameter, because it's highly
likely that the failure mode it's supposedly checking for will be
masked by the "random" function's tendency to spit out the same
value all the time. We might as well drop zipfian from the test
altogether and save ourselves some buildfarm cycles.
regards, tom lane