Re: reducing isolation tests runtime

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I'm working an updated version of this. Adding the new tests is a bit
> painful because of conflicting names making it harder than necessary to
> schedule tests. While it's possible to work out a schedule that doesn't
> conflict, it's pretty annoying to do and more importantly seems fragile
> - it's very easy to create schedules that succeed on one machine, and
> not on another, based on how slow which tests are.

> I'm more inclined to be a bit more aggressive in renaming tables -
> there's not much point in having a lot of "foo"s around. So I'm
> inclined to rename some of the names that are more likely to
> conflict. If we agree on doing that, I'd like to do that first, and
> commit that more aggressively than the schedule itself.

+1

> Do we want to maintain a serial version of the schedule too?

Some of the slower buildfarm critters use MAX_CONNECTIONS to limit
the load on their hosts. As long as the isolation tests honor that,
I don't see a real need for a separate serial schedule.

(We've talked about retiring the serial sched for the main regression
tests, and while that trigger's not been pulled yet, I think it's
just a matter of time. So making the isolation tests follow that
precedent seems wrong anyway.)

regards, tom lane