Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 6/19/16 5:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Depending on what the percentage actually is, maybe we could treat
>> this like the "random" test, and allow a failure to be disregarded
>> overall? But that doesn't seem very nice either, in view of our
>> increasing reliance on automated testing. If "random" were failing
>> 90% of the time on some buildfarm critters, that would probably
>> indicate a real problem, but we'd likely not realize it for a long time.

> I think this test would only fail if it runs out of workers, and that
> would only happen in an installcheck run against a server configured in
> a nonstandard way or that is doing something else -- which doesn't
> happen on the buildfarm.

Um, if you're speaking of select_parallel, that already runs in parallel
with two other regression tests, and there is no annotation in the
parallel_schedule file suggesting that adding more scripts to that group
would be bad. But yes, perhaps putting this test into its own standalone
group would be enough of a fix.

regards, tom lane