Re: [PATCH] random_normal function

From: Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random_normal function
Date: 2023-01-19 05:39:27
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/9/23 23:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, if this does bring the probability of failure down to the
> one-in-a-billion range, I think we could also nuke the whole
> "ignore:" business, simplifying pg_regress and allowing the
> random test to be run in parallel with others.
With 'ignore' option we get used to cover by tests some of the time
dependent features, such as "statement_timeout",
"idle_in_transaction_session_timeout", usage of user timeouts in
extensions and so on.

We have used the pg_sleep() function to interrupt a query at certain
execution phase. But on some platforms, especially in containers, the
query can vary execution time in so widely that the pg_sleep() timeout,
required to get rid of dependency on a query execution time, has become
unacceptable. So, the "ignore" option was the best choice.

For Now, Do we only have the "isolation tests" option to create stable
execution time-dependent tests now? Or I'm not aware about some test

Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2023-01-19 05:40:46 Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply
Previous Message Ankit Kumar Pandey 2023-01-19 05:22:00 Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order