Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA
Date: 2023-02-13 19:55:45
Message-ID: 1367959.1676318145@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2023-02-13 13:54:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> it seems like this class could eventually include tests that run a long time
>> but don't necessarily eat disk space. "resource-intensive" is too long.

> I'm not sure we'd want to combine time-intensive and disk-space-intensive test
> in the same category. Availability of disk space and cpu cycles don't have to
> correlate that well.

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines.

> lotsadisk, lotsacpu? :)

bigdisk, bigcpu?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-02-13 20:32:40 Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-02-13 19:34:22 Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA