Re: [PATCH] random_normal function

Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> 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.

> 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.

But does such a test have any actual value? If your test infrastructure
ignores the result, what makes you think you'd notice if the test did
indeed detect a problem?

I think "ignore:" was a kluge we put in twenty-plus years ago when our
testing standards were a lot lower, and it's way past time we got
rid of it.

regards, tom lane