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? -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
