| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing runtime of stats regression test |
| Date: | 2017-05-04 17:01:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZe+4sfu0jmHtBP064-peuuvgzRpN0nbn9ZdoPR-7imBA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yes, but that would be getting into the realm of new features, not
> post-feature-freeze test adjustments. It certainly couldn't be
> a candidate for back-patching.
I'm not sure there's some bright line between adding a new
SQL-callable function to cut down the test time and any other
tinkering we might do to reduce the regression test time. I think
there's a pretty good argument that all of the recent changes you made
in this area constitute strictly optional tinkering. I'm haven't been
objecting because they don't seem likely to destabilize anything, but
I don't see that they're really helping us get ready for beta either,
which is presumably what we ought to be focusing on at this point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-04 17:04:22 | Re: statement_timeout is not working as expected with postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Marina Polyakova | 2017-05-04 16:51:57 | Re: WIP Patch: Precalculate stable functions, infrastructure v1 |