| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks |
| Date: | 2018-04-06 21:54:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20293.1523051641@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> (I'm also not real happy about the amount of time the checksum-xxx
>> tests consume.)
> The isolation tester ones, or the regular ones? Because the regular ones
> finish in << 30 seconds here, just wondering if that actually counts as too
> time consuming in this type of tests?
The isolationtester ones. Looking at longfin, which while not a speed
demon isn't real slow either, the isolation-check step was taking 2:05
two days ago and now it's at 2:48. That's a pretty big incremental
jump for one feature.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-06 21:54:14 | Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-06 21:49:19 | Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts |