| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: regression coverage gaps for gist and hash indexes |
| Date: | 2023-04-02 16:38:32 |
| Message-ID: | 983026.1680453512@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2023-04-01 06:02:47 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>> +1 to put them in gist.sql and hash_index.sql.
> Unfortunately it turns out that running them in a parallel group reliably
> prevents cleanup of the dead rows, at least on my machine. Thereby preventing
> any increase in coverage. As they need to run serially, I think it makes more
> sense to keep the tests focussed and leave gist.sql and hash_index.sql to run
> in parallel.
If they have to run serially then that means that their runtime
contributes 1-for-1 to the total runtime of the core regression tests,
which is not nice at all. Can we move them to some other portion
of our test suite, preferably one that's not repeated four or more
times in each buildfarm run?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-02 16:54:17 | Re: regression coverage gaps for gist and hash indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-02 16:33:04 | Re: Add "host" to startup packet |