Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1glyG6-00004y-R2
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:46:38 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1glyG5-0001LZ-89
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:46:37 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1glyG4-0001LS-Tz
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:46:37 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1glyG1-0000kB-CY
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:46:35 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x0MFkT0w006662;
	Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:46:29 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901221054310.15365@lancre>
References: <9427.1547701450@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901170659210.7416@lancre> <21538.1547770868@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <4615.1547792324@sss.pgh.pa.us> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901180926580.26418@lancre>
 <29225.1547834182@sss.pgh.pa.us> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901182257480.20734@lancre>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901201051270.14950@lancre> <7879.1548015981@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901202225310.28945@lancre>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901221054310.15365@lancre>
Comments: In-reply-to Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
	message dated "Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:16:02 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6660.1548171989.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:46:29 -0500
Message-ID: <6661.1548171989@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Precedence: bulk

Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
> Given these results, I do not think that it is useful to change 
> random_zipfian TAP test parameter from 2.5 to something else.

I'm not following this argument.  The test case is basically useless
for its intended purpose with that parameter, because it's highly
likely that the failure mode it's supposedly checking for will be
masked by the "random" function's tendency to spit out the same
value all the time.  We might as well drop zipfian from the test
altogether and save ourselves some buildfarm cycles.

			regards, tom lane