Re: reducing isolation tests runtime

On 2019-Feb-13, Tom Lane wrote:

> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I'm working an updated version of this. Adding the new tests is a bit
> > painful because of conflicting names making it harder than necessary to
> > schedule tests. While it's possible to work out a schedule that doesn't
> > conflict, it's pretty annoying to do and more importantly seems fragile
> > - it's very easy to create schedules that succeed on one machine, and
> > not on another, based on how slow which tests are.
>
> > I'm more inclined to be a bit more aggressive in renaming tables -
> > there's not much point in having a lot of "foo"s around. So I'm
> > inclined to rename some of the names that are more likely to
> > conflict. If we agree on doing that, I'd like to do that first, and
> > commit that more aggressively than the schedule itself.
>
> +1

+1

(Using separate schemas sounds a useful idea if we accumulate dozens of
tests, so I suggest that we do that for future tests, but for the time
being I wouldn't bother.)

> > Do we want to maintain a serial version of the schedule too?
>
> Some of the slower buildfarm critters use MAX_CONNECTIONS to limit
> the load on their hosts. As long as the isolation tests honor that,
> I don't see a real need for a separate serial schedule.

MAX_CONNECTIONS was the only reason I didn't push this through. Do you
(Andres) have any solution to that?

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services