Re: [HACKERS] separate serial_schedule useful?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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.

> There's no reason why pg_regress couldn't have a
> --bail-if-group-size-exceeds=N argument, or why we couldn't have a
> separate Perl script to validate the schedule file as part of the
> build process.

I'd go for the former approach; seems like less new code and fewer cycles
used to enforce the rule.
        regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers