From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Instability in parallel regression tests |
Date: | 2018-03-15 02:51:14 |
Message-ID: | 17542.1521082274@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ... I manually filtered
>> out a bunch of non-problems, in particular discarding names that are in
>> per-test schemas; I think it's all right to allow tests that are taking
>> that precaution to do what they like name-wise.
> What if we always did that? That is, create a schema with a name
> corresponding to the .sql filename and make it default, as a
> convention? That might be a smaller and more localised change than
> renaming all these objects. It would also provide a convenient way to
> drop everything wholesale at the end.
There's a lot of objects that we *want* propagated from earlier tests to
later ones, and/or left around to help with pg_dump testing based on the
final state of the regression database. I don't think that just dropping
them all would be an improvement.
It might be possible to identify a set of tests that set up persistent
objects as opposed to ones that don't, but it wouldn't be a trivial
task.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-15 02:53:12 | Re: Re: [GSOC 18] Performance Farm Project——Initialization Project |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2018-03-15 02:47:34 | Re: [GSOC 18] Performance Farm Project——Initialization Project |