Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate?
Date: 2022-01-17 20:48:54
Message-ID: 145624.1642452534@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:
> I've occasionally pondered caching initdb results and reusing them across
> tests - just the locking around it seems a bit nasty, but perhaps that could
> be done as part of the tmp_install step. Of course, it'd need to deal with
> different options etc...

I'd actually built a prototype to do that, based on making a reference
cluster and then "cp -a"'ing it instead of re-running initdb. I gave
up when I found than on slower, disk-bound machines it was hardly
any faster. Thinking about it now, I wonder why not just re-use one
cluster for many tests, only dropping and re-creating the database
in which the testing happens.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-01-17 21:03:26 Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-01-17 20:43:25 Re: removing datlastsysoid