Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 13:43:09 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: "Burd, Greg" <greg@burd.me>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add tests for Bitmapset
Message-ID: <aLsvPdSHJdRCEk7v@nathan>
References: <7BD1ABDB-B03A-464A-9BA9-A73B55AD8A1F@getmailspring.com>
 <aLpENihhKL4vOxeX@nathan>
 <02DB5E92-1E94-4617-AC11-836486F63BD5@burd.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <02DB5E92-1E94-4617-AC11-836486F63BD5@burd.me>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aLsvPdSHJdRCEk7v%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 10:48:21AM -0400, Burd, Greg wrote:
> I looked at both radix tree and binary heap and how they use random sets when
> testing.  Binary heap uses it to create different random sets of numbers to
> use across multiple tests while radix tree has a single function that focuses
> on randomized data.  I decided not to add randomization into the tests of
> Bitmapset simply because I like avoiding non-deterministic behavior.  But in
> tests I guess that can be helpful finding future unknown corner cases.  I'm
> on the fence as to the value, your call.  :)

I'm not too concerned about it.  We've lived without a dedicated test suite
for Bitmapset for a very long time, so any amount of test coverage is an
improvement.  Like you said, adding some randomization might be helpful for
finding weird bugs we wouldn't have thought to test.  And, given the many,
many machines that run the tests, IMHO it'd only help build even more
confidence in the code.  If my suggestion inspires you to update the patch,
great, but I'm fine with proceeding with what you already wrote, too.

-- 
nathan