| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench test failing on 14beta1 on Debian/i386 |
| Date: | 2021-05-19 12:06:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCWi4Ns5XXn2K07UBBJqVs7jJGdVmTkKM_fN-+AZnD_NTQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 12:07, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>
> Attached patch disactivates the test with comments to outline that there
> is an issue to fix… so it is *not* removed.
>
I opted to just remove the test rather than comment it out, since the
issue highlighted isn't specific to permute(). Also changing the PRNG
will completely change the results, so all the test values would
require rewriting, rather than it just being a case of uncommenting
the test and expecting it to work.
> I'm obviously okay with providing an alternate PRNG, let me know if this
> is the prefered option.
>
That's something for consideration in v15. If we do decide we want a
new PRNG, it should apply across the board to all pgbench random
functions.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-05-19 12:14:47 | Re: Condition pushdown: why (=) is pushed down into join, but BETWEEN or >= is not? |
| Previous Message | Mathis Rudolf | 2021-05-19 12:03:01 | Alias collision in `refresh materialized view concurrently` |