From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cutting test runtime for src/test/modules/snapshot_too_old |
Date: | 2022-08-02 17:50:51 |
Message-ID: | 2664319.1659462651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, I feel like it was a mistake to allow the list of permutations
> to be unspecified. It encourages people to just run them all, which is
> almost never a thoughtful decision. Maybe there's something to be said
> for running these tests in one successful permutation and one failing
> permutation -- or maybe even that is overkill -- but running them all
> seems like a poor idea.
Yeah, I considered letting the no-error permutation survive. But
I didn't really see what coverage it was adding at all, let alone
coverage that'd justify doubling the test runtime.
Also ... while doing further research I was reminded that a couple
years ago we were seriously discussing nuking old_snapshot_threshold
altogether, on the grounds that it was so buggy as to be unsafe
to use, and nobody was stepping up to fix it [1][2]. It doesn't
appear to me that the situation has got any better, so I wonder if
we're prepared to pull that trigger yet.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200401064008.qob7bfnnbu4w5cw4%40alap3.anarazel.de
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BTgmoY%3Daqf0zjTD%2B3dUWYkgMiNDegDLFjo%2B6ze%3DWtpik%2B3XqA%40mail.gmail.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-08-02 18:01:00 | Re: [PATCH] Add sortsupport for range types and btree_gist |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-08-02 17:50:43 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |