From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker ) |
Cc: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, "movead(dot)li\(at)highgo(dot)ca" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca>, "ashutosh(dot)bapat" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string |
Date: | 2020-04-02 22:21:08 |
Message-ID: | 22818.1585866068@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Yeah, I'd noticed those on previous readings of the patch. They'd almost
>> certainly fail on some of our older/smaller buildfarm members, so they're
>> not getting committed, even if they didn't require multiple seconds apiece
>> to run (even on a machine with plenty of memory). It's useful to have
>> them for initial testing though.
> Perl's test suite has a similar issue with tests for handling of huge
> strings, hashes, arrays, regexes etc. We've taken the approach of
> checking the environment variable PERL_TEST_MEMORY and skipping tests
> that need more than that many gigabytes. We currently have tests that
> check for values from 1 all the way up to 96 GiB.
> This would be trivial to do in the Postgres TAP tests, but something
> similar might feasible in the pg_regress too?
Meh. The memory is only part of it; the other problem is that multiple
seconds expended in every future run of the regression tests is a price
that's many orders of magnitude higher than the potential value of this
test case.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-04-02 22:26:39 | Re: Add A Glossary |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-04-02 22:09:32 | Re: Add A Glossary |