Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepik...@postgrespro.ru> writes: > On 1/9/23 23:52, Tom Lane wrote: >> BTW, if this does bring the probability of failure down to the >> one-in-a-billion range, I think we could also nuke the whole >> "ignore:" business, simplifying pg_regress and allowing the >> random test to be run in parallel with others.
> We have used the pg_sleep() function to interrupt a query at certain > execution phase. But on some platforms, especially in containers, the > query can vary execution time in so widely that the pg_sleep() timeout, > required to get rid of dependency on a query execution time, has become > unacceptable. So, the "ignore" option was the best choice. But does such a test have any actual value? If your test infrastructure ignores the result, what makes you think you'd notice if the test did indeed detect a problem? I think "ignore:" was a kluge we put in twenty-plus years ago when our testing standards were a lot lower, and it's way past time we got rid of it. regards, tom lane