| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: separate serial_schedule useful? |
| Date: | 2017-10-07 14:23:08 |
| Message-ID: | 32481.1507386188@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:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The other routine mistake, which I see Robert just made again,
>> is to break the at-most-twenty-parallel-tests-at-once convention.
>> I wonder if we can get in some sort of automated check for that.
> There's no reason why pg_regress couldn't have a
> --bail-if-group-size-exceeds=N argument, or why we couldn't have a
> separate Perl script to validate the schedule file as part of the
> build process.
I'd go for the former approach; seems like less new code and fewer cycles
used to enforce the rule.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2017-10-07 15:15:13 | Re: Discussion on missing optimizations |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-07 13:52:41 | Re: parallelize queries containing initplans |