Re: [PATCH] Add tests for Bitmapset

On Sat, Apr 18, 2026, at 2:06 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 11:30, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> Thanks for double-checking.  Applied after running an indent.
>
> I was working on test_bitmapset.c to add some tests for a new
> bitmapset function. I noticed a few weird things.

Hi David,

I took a look at your patch, it seems straight forward and valuable.  Thanks for pushing this forward a bit.

> 1. test_random_operations() is coded to use GetCurrentTimestamp() as a
> seed when the given seed is <= 0. Of course, it'll be a while before
> the return value of that wraps beyond 2^63 (292250 years), but I still
> can't help but think that NULL is a better value to use to have the
> seed auto-generate.

I don't recall off hand why I had it coded that way, your changes make sense.

> 2. Doing #1 means the function can't be STRICT. I do think it's wrong
> that the function is marked as strict. That's normally reserved for
> functions that we needn't call because NULL input(s) yield a NULL
> output. That's not the case for this function.

Agreed, good call.

> 3. There's no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in test_random_operations(). If
> someone uses a large num_ops, there's no way to cancel the query.

Absolutely, thanks for finding the oversight.

> 4. If there happened to be some rare bug in bitmapset.c that
> test_random_operations() we might struggle to find it again, as we
> don't report which seed we used in the ERROR message.

Makes perfect sense.

> 5. Couple of minor cosmetics; header order, whilespace.

+1

> I felt it was worth fixing these now as the function I plan to add
> there does #1, #2, #3 and #4. If I add the new function for v20, the
> discrepancy seems questionable.
>
> David

I think these changes are reasonable and improve the tests.  Now I need to review your new bitmapset feature... :)

best.

-greg

> Attachments:
> * test_bitmapset_fixes.patch