Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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