| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Clément Prévost <prevostclement(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
| Date: | 2016-06-21 03:08:21 |
| Message-ID: | 2cf25a38-e2be-76a1-824e-6943ce345a44@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/19/16 5:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Depending on what the percentage actually is, maybe we could treat
> this like the "random" test, and allow a failure to be disregarded
> overall? But that doesn't seem very nice either, in view of our
> increasing reliance on automated testing. If "random" were failing
> 90% of the time on some buildfarm critters, that would probably
> indicate a real problem, but we'd likely not realize it for a long time.
I think this test would only fail if it runs out of workers, and that
would only happen in an installcheck run against a server configured in
a nonstandard way or that is doing something else -- which doesn't
happen on the buildfarm.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-21 03:16:53 | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-21 03:06:15 | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |