From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: reducing isolation tests runtime |
Date: | 2018-12-04 20:50:06 |
Message-ID: | 20181204205006.rvbbsbjax3vpm5by@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-12-04 15:45:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I'd like to see this revived, getting a bit tired waiting longer and
> > longer to see isolationtester complete. Is it really a problem that we
> > require a certain number of connections? Something on the order of 30-50
> > connections ought not to be a real problem for realistic machines, and
> > if it's a problem for one, they can use a serialized schedule?
>
> The longstanding convention in the main regression tests is 20 max.
> Is there a reason to be different here?
It's a bit less obvious from the outside how many connections a test
spawn - IOW, it might be easier to maintain the schedule if the cap
isn't as tight. And I'm doubtful that there's a good reason for the 20
limit these days, so going a bit higher seems reasonable.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-05 01:04:20 | pgsql: Fix invalid value of synchronous_commit in description of flush_ |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-04 20:45:39 | Re: reducing isolation tests runtime |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-12-04 20:56:05 | Re: make install getting slower |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-04 20:45:39 | Re: reducing isolation tests runtime |