From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: reducing isolation tests runtime |
Date: | 2019-02-13 17:46:50 |
Message-ID: | 20190213174650.3bjgfzjcnw3ys5ab@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-02-13 12:41:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Do you have an idea why we have both max_concurrent_tests *and*
> > max_connections in pg_regress? ISTM the former isn't really useful given
> > the latter?
>
> No, the former is a static restriction on what the schedule file is
> allowed to contain, the latter is a dynamic restriction (that typically
> is unlimited anyway).
Right, but why don't we allow for more tests in a group, and then use a
default max_connections to limit concurrency? Having larger groups is
advantageous wrt test runtime - it reduces the number of artificial
serialization point where the slowest test slows things down. Obviously
there's still a few groups that are needed for test interdependency
management, but that's comparatively rare. We have have plenty groups
that are just broken up to stay below max_concurrent_tests.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-13 18:01:52 | Re: reducing isolation tests runtime |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-13 17:41:41 | Re: reducing isolation tests runtime |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-13 17:59:19 | Re: subscriptionCheck failures on nightjar |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-13 17:41:51 | Re: subscriptionCheck failures on nightjar |