Re: pgbench test failing on 14beta1 on Debian/i386
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench test failing on 14beta1 on Debian/i386 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2105191305270.536342@pseudo обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench test failing on 14beta1 on Debian/i386 (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench test failing on 14beta1 on Debian/i386
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Dean, >>> Or, (3) remove this test? I am not quite sure what there is to gain >>> with this extra test considering all the other tests with permute() >>> already present in this script. >> >> Yes, I think removing the test is the best option. It was originally >> added because there was a separate code path for larger permutation >> sizes that needed testing, but that's no longer the case so the test >> really isn't adding anything. > > Hmmm… > > It is the one test which worked in actually detecting an issue, so I would > not say that it is not adding anything, on the contrary, it did prove its > value! The permute function is expected to be deterministic on different > platforms and architectures, and it is not. > > I agree that removing the test will hide the issue effectively:-) but ISTM > more appropriate to solve the underlying issue and keep the test. > > I'd agree with a two phases approach: drop the test in the short term and > deal with the PRNG later. I'm sooooo unhappy with this 48 bit PRNG that I may > be motivated enough to attempt to replace it, or at least add a better > (faster?? larger state?? same/better quality?) alternative. Attached patch disactivates the test with comments to outline that there is an issue to fix… so it is *not* removed. I'm obviously okay with providing an alternate PRNG, let me know if this is the prefered option. -- Fabien.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: