From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i |
Date: | 2017-12-06 21:31:10 |
Message-ID: | 11630.1512595870@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What appears to be happening is that a database-wide ANALYZE takes more
>> than a minute under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, causing isolationtester.c's
>> hardwired one-minute timeout to trigger.
> Is it really our policy that no isolation test can take more than a
> minute on the slowest buildfarm critter?
Well, I think it's a minute per query not per whole test script. But in
any case, if it's taking a longer time than any other isolation test on
the CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS critters, then it's also taking a proportionately
longer time than any other test on every other platform, and is therefore
costing every developer precious time today and indefinitely far into the
future. I continue to say that this test ain't worth it.
It's possible that we could compromise on dropping the steps that test
whole-database VACUUM/ANALYZE; the incremental gain from testing those
scenarios is certainly even less worth its cost than the basic cases.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-07 02:25:21 | Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i |
Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2017-12-06 20:32:38 | Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2017-12-06 21:46:52 | Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted? - overestimated correlation and cost_index |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2017-12-06 20:44:56 | Re: Accessing base table relational names via RelOptInfo |