On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 4:29 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 12:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I do not think the answer to this is to nag the respective animal
> > owners to raise PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT. IMV this test is simply
> > not worth the cycles it takes, at least not for these machines.
>
> Can't we just move it to PG_TEST_EXTRA? Alongside the existing
> "xid_wraparound" test?
>
> We didn't even have basic coverage of multi-pass VACUUMs before now.
> This new test added that coverage. I think that it will pull its
> weight.
Andres has suggested in the past that we allow maintenance_work_mem be
set to a lower value or introduce some kind of development GUC so that
we can more easily test multiple pass index vacuuming. Do you think
this would be worth it?
- Melanie