Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered

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