Re: reducing isolation tests runtime

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>>> On the subject of test total time, we could paralelize isolation tests.

>> BTW, one small issue there is that the reason the timeouts test is so
>> slow is that we have to use multi-second timeouts to be sure slower
>> buildfarm critters (eg valgrind animals) will get the expected results.
>> So I'm worried that if the machine isn't otherwise idle, we will get
>> random failures.

> I think we could solve this by putting in the same parallel group only
> slow tests that mostly sleeps, ie. nothing that would monopolize CPU for
> long enough to cause a problem. Concretely:
> test: timeouts tuplelock-update deadlock-hard deadlock-soft-2

OK, but there'd better be a comment there explaining the concern
very precisely, or somebody will break it.

regards, tom lane