Tom Lane wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> > Improve random regression tests to fail less frequently.
>
> If you're gonna do that you should fix the discussion in the admin
> guide. It presently says that failures in random should be expected
> every five to ten trials, and even hints that you should be concerned
> if you never see a failure.
Oh, I didn't know we had a mention of random there too. New text is:
<title>The <quote>random</quote> test</title>
<para>
There is at least one case in the <literal>random</literal> test
script that is intended to produce random results. This causes
random to fail the regression test occasionally. Typing
<programlisting>
diff results/random.out expected/random.out
</programlisting>
should produce only one or a few lines of differences. You need
not worry unless the random test always fails in repeated
attempts.
</para>
I wanted to reduce the frequency of random failure by doing more random
tests, and reduce the amount of confusion when it fails. I see no way
of preventing it from ever failing.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
