Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA
Date: 2023-02-13 19:10:39
Message-ID: 20230213191039.aslyxlpc6q7npxel@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2023-02-13 13:54:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bikeshedding a bit ... is "large" the right name? It's not awful but
> I wonder if there is a better one

I did wonder about that too. But didn't come up with something more poignant.

> it seems like this class could eventually include tests that run a long time
> but don't necessarily eat disk space. "resource-intensive" is too long.

I'm not sure we'd want to combine time-intensive and disk-space-intensive test
in the same category. Availability of disk space and cpu cycles don't have to
correlate that well.

lotsadisk, lotsacpu? :)

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2023-02-13 19:15:24 Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-02-13 19:06:58 Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA