Horton

Re: [PATCH] random_normal function

Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>

View thread
From: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca>
Date: 2023-01-19T05:39:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Round off random_normal() test results one more decimal place.

  2. Remove pg_regress' never-documented "ignore" feature.

  3. Upgrade the random.sql regression test.

  4. Invent random_normal() to provide normally-distributed random numbers.

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