On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 00:35, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > FWIW this is reproducible on my local Debian/gcc box with -m32,
Confirmed, thanks for looking. I can reproduce it on my machine with -m32. It's somewhat annoying that the buildfarm didn't pick it up sooner :-( On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 08:28, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:06:16AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > I see two simple approaches: > > > > (1) use another PRNG inside pgbench, eg Knuth's which was used in some > > previous submission and is very simple and IMHO better than the rand48 > > stuff. > > > > (2) extend pg_*rand48() to provide an unsigned 64 bits out of the 48 bits > > state. > > 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. Regards, Dean
