From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: numeric_big in make check? |
Date: | 2024-02-19 11:48:48 |
Message-ID: | 4030753.1708343328@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> numeric_big has been left out of parallel_schedule, requiring EXTRA_TESTS to
> run it, since going in back in 1999 (AFAICT it was even the reason EXTRA_TESTS
> was invented). The original commit states that it's huge, and it probably was.
> Today it runs faster than many tests we have in parallel_schedule, even on slow
> hardware like my ~5 year old laptop. Repeated runs in CI at various parallel
> groups place it at 50% the runtime of triggers.sql and 25% of brin.sql.
> To make sure it's executed and not silently breaks, is it time to add this to
> the regular make check?
Or we could just flush it. It's never detected a bug, and I think
you'd find that it adds zero code coverage (or if not, we could
fix that in a far more surgical and less expensive manner).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-02-19 12:01:53 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2024-02-19 11:41:25 | Re: Add an option to skip loading missing publication to avoid logical replication failure |