From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: reducing isolation tests runtime |
Date: | 2018-01-25 21:27:28 |
Message-ID: | 20180125212728.vtiypt3fiu3pxguh@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > Here's a concrete proposal. Runtime is 45.7 seconds on my laptop. It
> > can be further reduced, but not by more than a second or two unless you
> > get in the business of modifying other tests. (I only modified
> > deadlock-soft-2 because it saves 5 seconds).
>
> Looks reasonable to me, but do we want to set any particular convention
> about the max number of tests to run in parallel? If so there should
> be at least a comment saying what.
Hmm, I ran this in a limited number of connections and found that it
fails with less than 27; and there's no MAX_CONNECTIONS like there is
for pg_regress. So I'll put this back on the drawing board until I'm
back from vacations ...
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-01-26 01:13:35 | pgsql: Fix C comment typo |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-25 20:58:04 | Re: reducing isolation tests runtime |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-01-25 21:38:07 | Re: After dropping the rule - Not able to insert / server crash (one time ONLY) |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-01-25 21:21:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |