From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl? |
Date: | 2022-04-05 00:39:58 |
Message-ID: | 20220405003958.a4aygou72d3tmwgy@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-04-05 08:46:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 11:53:03AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It seems $subject would have a chance of catching some of these bugs, as well
> > as exposing amcheck to a database with a bit more varied content?
>
> Makes sense to me to extend that.
>
> > Depending on the cost it might make sense to do this optionally, via
> > PG_TEST_EXTRA?
>
> Yes, it would be good to check the difference in run-time before
> introducing more. A logical dump of the regression database is no
> more than 15MB if I recall correctly, so my guess is that most of the
> runtime is still going to be eaten by the run of pg_regress.
On my workstation it takes about 2.39s to run pg_amcheck on a regression
database with all thoroughness options enabled. With -j4 it's 0.62s.
Without more thorough checking it's 1.24s and 0.30s with -j4.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2022-04-05 00:51:20 | Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-04-05 00:25:55 | Re: Extensible Rmgr for Table AMs |