Re: reducing isolation tests runtime

Hi,

On 2018-01-25 18:27:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > > Here's a concrete proposal. Runtime is 45.7 seconds on my laptop. It
> > > can be further reduced, but not by more than a second or two unless you
> > > get in the business of modifying other tests. (I only modified
> > > deadlock-soft-2 because it saves 5 seconds).
> >
> > Looks reasonable to me, but do we want to set any particular convention
> > about the max number of tests to run in parallel? If so there should
> > be at least a comment saying what.
>
> Hmm, I ran this in a limited number of connections and found that it
> fails with less than 27; and there's no MAX_CONNECTIONS like there is
> for pg_regress. So I'll put this back on the drawing board until I'm
> back from vacations ...

I'd like to see this revived, getting a bit tired waiting longer and
longer to see isolationtester complete. Is it really a problem that we
require a certain number of connections? Something on the order of 30-50
connections ought not to be a real problem for realistic machines, and
if it's a problem for one, they can use a serialized schedule?

Greetings,

Andres Freund