From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate? |
Date: | 2022-01-17 20:48:54 |
Message-ID: | 145624.1642452534@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:
> I've occasionally pondered caching initdb results and reusing them across
> tests - just the locking around it seems a bit nasty, but perhaps that could
> be done as part of the tmp_install step. Of course, it'd need to deal with
> different options etc...
I'd actually built a prototype to do that, based on making a reference
cluster and then "cp -a"'ing it instead of re-running initdb. I gave
up when I found than on slower, disk-bound machines it was hardly
any faster. Thinking about it now, I wonder why not just re-use one
cluster for many tests, only dropping and re-creating the database
in which the testing happens.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-01-17 21:03:26 | Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-17 20:43:25 | Re: removing datlastsysoid |