Re: A test for replay of regression tests

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A test for replay of regression tests
Date: 2022-01-27 20:47:08
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2022-01-27 15:27:17 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> fairywren is not happy with the recovery tests still.

Any more details?

> I have noticed on a different setup that this test adds 11 minutes to the
> runtime of the recovery tests, effectively doubling it. The doubling is
> roughly true on faster setups, too

Does a normal regress run take roughly that long? Or is the problem that the ends up defaulting to shared_buffers=1MB, causing lots
of unnecessary IO?

> . At least I would like a simple
> way to disable the test.

One thing we could do to speed up the overall runtime would be to move to something numbered earlier. Combined with
PROVE_FLAGS=-j2 that could at least run them in parallel with the rest of the
recovery tests.


Andres Freund

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Imseih (AWS), Sami 2022-01-27 21:09:05 Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2022-01-27 20:41:04 Re: Creation of an empty table is not fsync'd at checkpoint