Hi, On 2024-07-21 12:51:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> writes: > > When I run it on my machine with some added logging, the space taken > > by dead items is about 330 kB more than maintenance_work_mem (which is > > set to 1 MB). I could roughly double the excess by increasing the > > number of inserted tuples from 400000 to 600000. I'll do this.
> mamba, gull, and mereswine are 32-bit machines, which aside from > being old and slow suffer an immediate 2x size-of-test penalty: I think what we ought to do here is to lower the lower limit for memory usage for vacuum. With the new state in 17+ it basically has become impossible to test multi-pass vacuums in a way that won't get your test thrown out - that's bad. > 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. This specific area of the code has a *long* history of bugs, I'd be very loath to give up testing. Greetings, Andres Freund
