On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Sounds like you're saying that if we have too many alternative files
>> then there's a chance that one could pass by luck.
> Yeah, exactly: it passed, but did it pass for the right reason?
> If there's just two expected-files, it's likely not a big problem,
> but if you have a bunch it's something to worry about.
> I'm also wondering how come we had hash partitioning before and
> did not have this sort of problem.  Is it just that we added a
> new test that's more sensitive to the details of the hashing
> (if so, could it be made less so)?  Or is there actually more
> platform dependence now than before (and if so, why is that)?

The existing hash partitioning tests did have some dependencies on the
hash function, but they took care not to use the built-in hash
functions.  Instead they did stuff like this:

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION hashint4_noop(int4, int8) RETURNS int8 AS
$$SELECT coalesce($1,0)::int8$$ LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE;
OPERATOR 1 = , FUNCTION 2 hashint4_noop(int4, int8);
CREATE TABLE mchash (a int, b text, c jsonb)
  PARTITION BY HASH (a test_int4_ops, b test_text_ops);

I think that this approach should also be used for the new tests.
Variant expected output files are a pain to maintain, and you
basically just have to take whatever output you get as the right
answer, because nobody knows what output a certain built-in hash
function should produce for a given input except by running the code.
If you do the kind of thing shown above, though, then you can easily
see by inspection that you're getting the right answer.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to