From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Instability in TRUNCATE regression test |
Date: | 2006-06-28 17:58:13 |
Message-ID: | 28293.1151517493@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> If this were a significant risk wouldn't we have seen many such failures
> before now?
Hard to tell. It's possibly architecture-dependent, for one thing
(MAXALIGN will affect space availability). Since this happened in a
parallel regression run, it could also be a matter of timing relative to
the concurrent tests. I've often thought that we are not getting as much
mileage out of the parallel-testing facility as we could, because it's
really not exercising variations in timing all that much. It'd be
interesting to throw in a small random delay at the start of each member
of a concurrent set of tests.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-28 17:59:32 | Re: Instability in TRUNCATE regression test |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-28 17:56:09 | Re: Instability in TRUNCATE regression test |