| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 72017e35-9b16-9223-d785-3e5a452f186a@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
machinery?
--
Regards
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
| 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 |