Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl?
Date: 2022-04-05 00:39:58
Message-ID: 20220405003958.a4aygou72d3tmwgy@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2022-04-05 08:46:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 11:53:03AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It seems $subject would have a chance of catching some of these bugs, as well
> > as exposing amcheck to a database with a bit more varied content?
>
> Makes sense to me to extend that.
>
> > Depending on the cost it might make sense to do this optionally, via
> > PG_TEST_EXTRA?
>
> Yes, it would be good to check the difference in run-time before
> introducing more. A logical dump of the regression database is no
> more than 15MB if I recall correctly, so my guess is that most of the
> runtime is still going to be eaten by the run of pg_regress.

On my workstation it takes about 2.39s to run pg_amcheck on a regression
database with all thoroughness options enabled. With -j4 it's 0.62s.

Without more thorough checking it's 1.24s and 0.30s with -j4.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2022-04-05 00:51:20 Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2022-04-05 00:25:55 Re: Extensible Rmgr for Table AMs