Re: [HACKERS] separate serial_schedule useful?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] separate serial_schedule useful?
Дата
Msg-id 5934.1507320966@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на [HACKERS] separate serial_schedule useful?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] separate serial_schedule useful?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.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


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

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] separate serial_schedule useful?
Следующее
От: Badrul Chowdhury
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: LibpqPGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)