Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.21.1901182257480.20734@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>> Maybe on OpenBSD pg should switch srandom to srandom_deterministic? > > Dunno. I'm fairly annoyed by their idea that they're smarter than POSIX. > However, for most of our uses of srandom, this behavior isn't awful; > it's only pgbench that has an expectation that the platform random() > can be made to behave deterministically. And TBH I think that's just > an expectation that's going to bite us. > > I'd suggest that maybe we should get rid of the use of both random() > and srandom() in pgbench, and go over to letting set_random_seed() > fill the pg_erand48 state directly. In the integer-seed case you > could use something equivalent to pg_srand48. (In the other cases > probably you could do better, certainly the strong-random case could > just fill all 6 bytes directly.) That would get us to a place where > the behavior of --random-seed=N is not only deterministic but > platform-independent, which seems like an improvement. That's a point. Althought I'm not found of round48, indeed having something platform independent for testing makes definite sense. I'll look into it. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: