| 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 16:49:08 |
| Message-ID: | 6137.1507394948@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.
Concretely, how about the attached? (Obviously we'd have to fix
parallel_schedule before committing this.)
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| enforce-max-test-parallelism.patch | text/x-diff | 3.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-10-07 17:08:27 | Re: Issue with logical replication: MyPgXact->xmin already is valid |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2017-10-07 16:23:04 | Re: Issue with logical replication: MyPgXact->xmin already is valid |