From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
Date: | 2024-07-21 21:04:42 |
Message-ID: | 729493.1721595882@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 12:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I do not think the answer to this is to nag the respective animal
>> owners to raise PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT. IMV this test is simply
>> not worth the cycles it takes, at least not for these machines.
> Can't we just move it to PG_TEST_EXTRA? Alongside the existing
> "xid_wraparound" test?
Perhaps. xid_wraparound seems entirely too slow for what it's
testing as well, if you ask me, and there's a concurrent thread
about that test causing problems too.
> There will always be a small number of extremely slow buildfarm
> animals. Optimizing for things like Raspberry pi animals with SD cards
> just doesn't seem like a good use of developer time. I really care
> about keeping the tests fast, but only on platforms that hackers
> actually use for their development work.
I find this argument completely disingenuous. If a test is slow
enough to cause timeout failures on slower machines, then it's also
eating a disproportionate number of cycles in every other check-world
run --- many of which have humans waiting for them to finish. Caring
about the runtime of test cases is good for future-you not just
obsolete buildfarm animals.
I note also that the PG_TEST_EXTRA approach has caused xid_wraparound
to get next-to-zero buildfarm coverage. If that test is actually
capable of revealing problems, we're unlikely to find out under the
status quo.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-07-21 21:23:40 | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-07-21 20:42:22 | Re: WIP: parallel GiST index builds |