From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: separate serial_schedule useful? |
Date: | 2017-10-06 20:16:06 |
Message-ID: | 5934.1507320966@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I noticed that the test "hash_func" was listed in parallel_schedule but
> not in serial_schedule. I have seen that a few times recently where a
> patch proposes to add a new test file but forgets to add it to the
> serial_schedule.
Yeah, this is way too routine :-(
> I wonder whether it's still useful to keep two separate test lists. I
> think we could just replace make installcheck with what make
> installcheck-parallel MAX_CONNECTIONS=1 does. Thoughts?
Hm, that seems like potentially a good idea. I can't see an argument
against it offhand.
The other routine mistake, which I see Robert just made again,
is to break the at-most-twenty-parallel-tests-at-once convention.
I wonder if we can get in some sort of automated check for that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Badrul Chowdhury | 2017-10-06 21:07:51 | Re: Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-10-06 19:37:09 | separate serial_schedule useful? |