| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA |
| Date: | 2023-02-13 19:06:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20230213190658.vzdhu2rpypt7wx5v@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-02-13 13:45:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Are there existing tests that we should add into that set that you're
> thinking of..? I've been working with the Kerberos tests and that's
> definitely one that seems to fit this description...
I think the kerberos tests are already opt-in, so I don't think we need to
gate it further.
Maybe the pgbench tests?
I guess there's an argument to be made that we should use this for e.g.
002_pg_upgrade.pl or 027_stream_regress.pl - but I think both of these test
pretty fundamental behaviour like WAL replay, which is unfortunately is pretty
easy to break, so I'd be hesitant.
I guess we could stop running the full regression tests in 002_pg_upgrade.pl
if !large?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-13 19:10:39 | Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-13 18:54:59 | Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA |