| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Need a builtin way to run all tests faster manner |
| Date: | 2017-03-08 17:54:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYHgLj3WMw=sGviXxKRHovjv70Twf5YOFXz3hJRw6i+8Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Personally that's not addressing my main concern, which is that the
> latency of getting done with some patch/topic takes a long while. If I
> have to wait for the buildfarm to check some preliminary patch, I still
> have to afterwards work on pushing it to master. And very likely my
> local check would finish a lot faster than a bunch of buildfarm animals
> - I have after all a plenty powerfull machine, lots of cores, fast ssd,
> lots of memory, ...
>
> So I really want faster end-to-end test, not less cpu time spent on my
> own machine.
Yeah. I think the buildfarm-for-test-commits or maybe
buildfarm-for-approved-branches-belonging-to-people-we-basically-trust
idea isn't a bad one, but it's not a substitute for $SUBJECT.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2017-03-08 17:54:22 | Re: Hash support for grouping sets |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-08 17:53:23 | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |