On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> David Rowley <david.rowley@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;
> CREATE OPERATOR CLASS test_int4_ops FOR TYPE int4 USING HASH AS
> 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.
+1.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
