| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X |
| Date: | 2014-10-30 17:27:25 |
| Message-ID: | 32279.1414690045@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Yup, you read that right, it took 32 seconds to run those dozen utterly
> trivial tests. As far as I could tell by eyeball, pretty much all of the
> time went into test 11, which is odd since it seems not significantly
> different from the others. I think there's something wacky about IPC::Run
> on this platform.
Hm ... on my RHEL6 machine, it takes about 2.5 seconds to run the
pg_controldata TAP tests, and again it looks like practically all of that
is going into test 11. Given the speed differential between the two
machines, the time taken by prairiedog is roughly in line with that.
So the real question seems to be "why is IPC::Run's performance so
inconsistent"? Is there something I'm not understanding that would cause
test 11 to require much more time than the others?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-30 17:46:59 | infinite loop in _bt_getstackbuf |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-30 16:02:07 | Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5) |