> On 4 Sep 2023, at 23:09, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > I could imagine categories for filesystem bytes and RAM bytes. Also, while > needs-private-lo has a bounded definition, "slow" doesn't. If today's one > "slow" test increases check-world duration by 1.1x, we may not let a > 100x-increase test use the same keyword.
Agreed, the names should be descriptive enough to contain a boundary. Any new test which is orders of magnitude slower than an existing test suite most likely will have one/more boundary characteristics not shared with existing suites. The test in 20210423204306.5osfpkt2ggaed...@alap3.anarazel.de for autovacuum wraparound comes to mind as one that would warrant a new category. > If one introduced needs-private-lo, the present spelling of "all" would be > "needs-private-lo wal_consistency_checking". I think it makes sense to invent a new PG_TEST_EXTRA category which (for now) only contains wal_consistency_checking to make it consistent, such that "all" can be achieved by a set of categories. -- Daniel Gustafsson
