From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reducing the runtime of the core regression tests |
Date: | 2019-04-10 23:19:38 |
Message-ID: | 32387.1554938378@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> * Likewise, I split up indexing.sql by moving the "fastpath" test into
>> a new file index_fastpath.sql.
> I just noticed that the "fastpath" test actually fails to test the
> fastpath optimization -- the coverage we do have comes from another
> test in btree_index.sql, that I wrote back in December.
Oh! Hmm.
> I'll come up with a patch to deal with this situation, by
> consolidating the old and new tests in some way. I don't think that
> your work needs to block on that, though.
Should I leave out the part of my patch that creates index_fastpath.sql?
If we're going to end up removing that version of the test, there's no
point in churning the related lines beforehand.
One way or the other I want to get that test out of where it is,
because indexing.sql is currently the slowest test in its group.
But if you prefer to make btree_index run a bit longer rather than
inventing a new test script, that's no problem from where I stand.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Martinez | 2019-04-10 23:52:27 | Proper usage of ndistinct vs. dependencies extended statistics |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-04-10 23:14:12 | Re: serializable transaction: exclude constraint violation (backed by GIST index) instead of ssi conflict |