From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: join regression failure on cygwin |
Date: | 2009-07-24 14:27:54 |
Message-ID: | 4A69C4EA.4000909@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>
>>> It appears on Googling a bit that the erand48() is buggy in that it
>>> requires the seed to have been initialized with srand48() or it will
>>> constantly return 0.0.
>>>
>
>
>> Huh, and that sends us into an infinite loop? I'll take a look at that.
>> Even though it's surely nonrandom, it doesn't seem like pathological
>> behavior of the RNG should wedge us completely.
>>
>
> The answer is that a constant RNG result sends this bit of
> geqo_selection() into a tight loop:
>
> int first,
> second;
>
> first = linear(root, pool->size, bias);
> second = linear(root, pool->size, bias);
>
> if (pool->size > 1)
> {
> while (first == second)
> second = linear(root, pool->size, bias);
> }
>
> Not sure if it's worth trying to do something about that, or exactly
> what we'd do anyway. Even if we hacked this up somehow, a constant RNG
> result would pretty much break GEQO for any useful purpose. So it could
> be argued that having the regression tests fail here is a good thing...
>
>
>
Right. Let's let sleeping dogs lie. I think at most a code comment is
the only action called for.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-24 14:47:06 | Re: display previous query string of idle-in-transaction |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-24 14:22:23 | Re: join regression failure on cygwin |