On 2019-Feb-13, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > I'm working an updated version of this. Adding the new tests is a bit > > painful because of conflicting names making it harder than necessary to > > schedule tests. While it's possible to work out a schedule that doesn't > > conflict, it's pretty annoying to do and more importantly seems fragile > > - it's very easy to create schedules that succeed on one machine, and > > not on another, based on how slow which tests are. > > > I'm more inclined to be a bit more aggressive in renaming tables - > > there's not much point in having a lot of "foo"s around. So I'm > > inclined to rename some of the names that are more likely to > > conflict. If we agree on doing that, I'd like to do that first, and > > commit that more aggressively than the schedule itself. > > +1
+1 (Using separate schemas sounds a useful idea if we accumulate dozens of tests, so I suggest that we do that for future tests, but for the time being I wouldn't bother.) > > Do we want to maintain a serial version of the schedule too? > > Some of the slower buildfarm critters use MAX_CONNECTIONS to limit > the load on their hosts. As long as the isolation tests honor that, > I don't see a real need for a separate serial schedule. MAX_CONNECTIONS was the only reason I didn't push this through. Do you (Andres) have any solution to that? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
