Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> This seems like pretty good evidence that we should remove the "ignored" >> marking for the random test, and maybe remove that functionality from >> pg_regress altogether. We could probably adjust the test to decrease >> its risk-of-failure by another factor of ten or so, if anyone feels like >> 0.005% failure probability is too high.
> I suppose that as far as the buildfarm goes it's okay that the test > fails from time to time, but it may be worse from packagers' points of > view, where a randomly failing test can wreck the whole building > process. Is a 0.005% failure probability low enough that nobody will be > bothered by that? As an ex-packager, I think that's a couple orders of magnitude below where anybody will notice it, let alone feel pain. There are other causes of failure that will dwarf this one. (You may recall that I used to bitch regularly about the failure probabilities for mysql's regression tests --- but that was because the probability of failure was on the order of 50%, when building in Red Hat's buildfarm.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers