| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Date: | 2022-02-12 22:26:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20220212222625.aph3ft466ntifrpi@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-02-12 16:06:40 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I had some success with that, but it doesn't seem to be significantly faster -
> it looks a lot like the tests are not actually running in parallel.
Note that prove unfortunately serializes the test output to be in the order it
started them, even when tests run concurrently. Extremely unhelpful, but ...
Isn't this kind of a good test time? I thought earlier your alltaptests target
took a good bit longer?
One nice bit is that the output is a *lot* easier to read.
You could try improving the total time by having prove remember slow tests and
use that file to run the slowest tests first next time. --state slow,save or
such I believe. Of course we'd have to save that state file...
To verify that tests actually run concurrently you could emit a few
notes. Looks like those are output immediately...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-02-12 23:57:28 | FailedAssertion("prev_first_lsn < cur_txn->first_lsn", File: "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 1173, ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-12 22:16:03 | Re: pgsql: Add suport for server-side LZ4 base backup compression. |