Re: Create shorthand for including all extra tests

> On 4 Sep 2023, at 23:09, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:

> I could imagine categories for filesystem bytes and RAM bytes. Also, while
> needs-private-lo has a bounded definition, "slow" doesn't. If today's one
> "slow" test increases check-world duration by 1.1x, we may not let a
> 100x-increase test use the same keyword.

Agreed, the names should be descriptive enough to contain a boundary. Any new
test which is orders of magnitude slower than an existing test suite most
likely will have one/more boundary characteristics not shared with existing
suites. The test in 20210423204306(dot)5osfpkt2ggaedyvy(at)alap3(dot)anarazel(dot)de for
autovacuum wraparound comes to mind as one that would warrant a new category.

> If one introduced needs-private-lo, the present spelling of "all" would be
> "needs-private-lo wal_consistency_checking".

I think it makes sense to invent a new PG_TEST_EXTRA category which (for now)
only contains wal_consistency_checking to make it consistent, such that "all"
can be achieved by a set of categories.

--
Daniel Gustafsson