| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Making background psql nicer to use in tap tests |
| Date: | 2023-04-08 01:04:22 |
| Message-ID: | 3270499.1680915862@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2023-04-07 20:49:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IPC::Run 0.98 is relatively new (2018), so I don't think it'd fly
>> to make that our new minimum version across-the-board. I recommend
>> just setting up this one test to SKIP if IPC::Run is too old.
> Does the test actually take a while before it fails, or is it quick?
It times out at whatever your PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT is. I waited
3 minutes the first time, and then reduced that to 20sec for the
rest of the tries ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-08 01:13:43 | Re: daitch_mokotoff module |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-08 00:57:33 | Re: Making background psql nicer to use in tap tests |