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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD
Date: 2019-01-22 15:46:29
Message-ID: 6661.1548171989@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Coleman 2019-01-22 15:49:29 Re: Proving IS NOT NULL inference for ScalarArrayOpExpr's
Previous Message James Coleman 2019-01-22 15:43:02 Re: Proving IS NOT NULL inference for ScalarArrayOpExpr's