Re: reducing isolation tests runtime

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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