On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:26:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 09:48:25PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Meson's test runner has the concept of a "timeout multiplier" for ways of > >> running tests. Meson's stuff is about entire tests (i.e. one tap test), so > >> doesn't apply here, but I wonder if we shouldn't do something similar? > > > Hmmm. It is good if the user can express an intent that continues to make > > sense if we change the default timeout. For the buildfarm use case, a > > multiplier is moderately better on that axis (PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_MULTIPLIER=100 > > beats PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT=18000). For the hacker use case, an absolute > > value is substantially better on that axis (PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT=3 beats > > PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_MULTIPLIER=.016666). > > FWIW, I'm fairly sure that PGISOLATIONTIMEOUT=300 was selected after > finding that smaller values didn't work reliably in the buildfarm. > Now maybe 741d7f1 fixed that, but I wouldn't count on it. So while I > approve of the idea to remove PGISOLATIONTIMEOUT in favor of using this > centralized setting, I think that we might need to have a multiplier > there, or else we'll end up with PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT set to 300 > across the board. Perhaps the latter is fine, but a multiplier seems a > bit more flexible.
The PGISOLATIONTIMEOUT replacement was 2*timeout_default, so isolation suites would get 2*180s=360s. (I don't want to lower any default timeouts, but I don't mind raising them.) In a sense, PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT is a multiplier with as many sites as possible multiplying it by 1. The patch has multiples at two code sites. > On the other hand, I also support your point that an absolute setting > is easier to think about / adjust for special uses. So maybe we should > just KISS and use a single absolute setting until we find a hard reason > why that doesn't work well.
